Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TYNE TUNNELS BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Drug-resistant Tuberculosis

Mr. Dalyell: Pursuant to the letter from the Minister for Public Health (POH/3/5437/23) of 14 December 1997 on drug—resistant tuberculosis, what response Her Majesty's Government have had to its recommendation that while all patients should be closely supervised throughout their treatment, fully directly observed therapy is essential for those who are, or are suspected to be, poorly compliant with treatment, and for those with drug—resistant disease. [23413]

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): The Government have consulted widely on the best means to ensure effective treatment for people suffering from TB and particularly for vulnerable groups suffering from multiple drug-resistant TB. Both the interdepartmental working group on TB and the British Thoracic Society support the view adopted by the Government that directly observed therapy should be provided early in cases of patients suffering from drug-resistant TB where the patient is, for whatever reason, poorly compliant with treatment.

Mr. Dalyell: Why are we not supporting universal directly observed therapy for TB?

Ms Jowell: Ultimately, the judgment on whether therapy for people suffering from drug-resistant TB is provided is for the clinician. Clinicians decide whether treatment should be provided in this way.

Maternity Services (Wakefield)

Mr. Bill O'Brien: If he will make a statement on new hospital provisions in the area of the Wakefield health authority, with particular reference to maternity services. [23414]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): I understand that Wakefield health authority is consulting local people about proposals to reshape acute and maternity services. As the issue may be referred to Ministers for decision, I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage.

Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As he knows, my constituents' major concern is the suggested closure of the maternity unit at Pinderfields hospital in my constituency. It is a first-class unit, highly efficient and most secure. It can offer a back-up service to any mother or child in danger or with problems. Does the Minister accept that there is much concern, especially in my constituency, but generally throughout the Wakefield area, about the threatened closure? Does he accept that there is a fair amount of unjust concern in respect of the health authority and major concern among my constituents? Will he visit the unit to see for himself its efficiency and the way in which it helps people? I have witnessed that, and I would like him to join me in experiencing it.

Mr. Boateng: Any invitation to visit my hon. Friend's constituency is almost irresistible. I will certainly look at my timetable to see how we can accommodate his helpful suggestion. He is a doughty fighter for the NHS in his constituency. He understands that, in considering anything that comes to us from the health authority, we will ensure that his constituency and its surrounding area enjoy a high-quality, up-to-date NHS providing in a modern and responsive setting the treatment to which his constituents are entitled. He has my warm assurance on that.

Pharmaceutical Prices

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If he will make a statement on the future of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. [23415]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The present pharmaceutical price regulation scheme ends in September this year. We are considering what the future arrangements should be. Our twin aims will be to keep down the cost of drugs for the NHS while helping to sustain the international success of the British pharmaceutical industry.

Mrs. Bottomley: Does the Secretary of State intend that the renegotiation be completed, and the revised arrangements be in place, by October?

Mr. Dobson: It is our intention—we may not succeed, but it is our intention.

Mr. Blizzard: Community pharmacists who serve neighbourhoods in my constituency are under threat from applications to site pharmacies in out-of-town supermarkets. If such applications succeed, those community pharmacies will go out of business and, if they do, many people without cars in those neighbourhoods will be disadvantaged, especially the elderly and lone


parents. Will my right hon. Friend please look into the problem and try to help community pharmacists to withstand that threat?

Mr. Dobson: We are certainly aware of the problem, but there is a balance to be struck. We want to retain as many local community pharmacists as possible and to encourage trained pharmacists to make a greater contribution to the national health service than they are making at present.

Mr. Ian Bruce: This is all waffle—the Secretary of State should look at his Government's Competition Bill.

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) shuts up for a minute and listens, he will hear me say that there are substantial numbers of people who find it convenient to obtain the drugs they want when visiting the supermarket. The balance is one between two different types of convenience and it will have to be struck.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that the Secretary of State wants to defend the pharmaceutical industry, but he must also bear in mind the fact that some of the supermarkets might pick and choose the type of drugs they want to sell, which would endanger the overall spread throughout the country. Will he bear that in mind when making his evaluation?

Mr. Dobson: I will certainly bear in mind those very points, because they are the points that we have been making in our discussions with the various interested parties. However, as I said, there is a balance to be struck. We want to maximise the convenience of all potential users of pharmacies, and to encourage and extend the contribution that trained pharmacists can make. At the moment, I do not think that they are getting a great deal of job satisfaction out of some of their work and we are not getting a return on the substantial investment in their lengthy training.

Staff Morale

Mr. Sawford: What proposals he has to improve staff morale in the NHS. [23416]

Mr. Dobson: The election of a Labour Government committed to the national health service that we founded was a great start in raising morale in the NHS. Since being elected, we have—unlike the previous Government—listened to the people working in the NHS. Their views and experience are reflected in the proposals in our White Paper, "The New NHS", which will make the NHS modern and dependable. Working with staff, we are combating assaults on staff, introducing family-friendly employment policies, combating racism and promoting health and safety at work. We have also lifted the gagging clauses on staff which were imposed under the previous Government.

Mr. Sawford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that staff morale in my local health authority has been immensely improved this winter, due to the £1.6 million that the Government found for local health services? In Kettering, we have benefited from £93,000 for the expanded intensive

care unit, which I had the great pleasure of formally opening the other week; £35,000 for extra staff in accident and emergency; £35,000 for the medical assessment unit; and £56,000 for the surgical assessment unit. Those are all positive developments which have affected staff morale in my local hospital. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House in what ways he will further involve local staff in all decision-making processes within the local health authority and the NHS?

Mr. Dobson: I should start by paying tribute to all the hard work done by people working in the NHS in maintaining services during the Christmas and new year period and during this period, as winter pressures build up. We are determined to ensure that the staff working in the health service—the people who have developed a vast amount of precious experience—have their say in how things go on in future. That is why we are to establish a new task force to look at how to improve staff involvement, drawing on the direct experience of people currently working in the health service and also, quite properly, drawing on the experience of other, private sector businesses which have a good success rate in staff involvement.

Mrs. Roe: What does the Secretary of State believe the effect on staff morale at the Whittington hospital in North London has been following the publication in last Saturday's Daily Mail of an article headed:
How the NHS betrayed my Mum"?
The article contained a description of the appalling treatment of a woman patient. Delays in her admission and diagnosis had culminated in her death, amid squalor, noise and broken equipment.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a disgrace that the chairmanship of that NHS trust hospital has been vacant for nine months—since 1 May 1997, when Baroness Hayman resigned to take up her post as a Labour Minister in the House of Lords? Is this not an example of the Labour Government's contempt for staff and patients?

Mr. Dobson: It is nothing of the sort—and the chairman's post has been filled.
The treatment of some old people in acute hospitals has proved to be indefensibly bad. That is why, before Christmas, I asked the health advisory service to conduct a survey of the way in which old people are treated in acute hospitals, a move which was welcomed by every organisation campaigning on the issue. We will take whatever answers the survey comes up with very seriously.
If the hon. Lady will give me details of the case that she cited, I will pursue the matter. The Whittington hospital serves people in my constituency, and—whatever fall from grace may have been revealed by the report in the Daily Mail—most of my constituents who have to go there tell me that they receive a good service from the staff.

Mr. Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that staff morale has improved a great deal since the Labour victory on 1 May? However, all those in the national health service feel better when everyone is pulling their weight. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is increasing discontent among staff and patients about the fact that doctors who are supposed to be national health service consultants spend far


too much time—more than their contract allows—doing private work? That means a long wait for those whom they should be treating in the national health service.

Mr. Dobson: It is certainly the case that the previous Government introduced what they called a full-time contract for consultants, which allowed them to work less than full time in the national health service.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The pressures on the health service—there are longer waiting times, and it was reported today that 10 per cent. of patients had waited for four hours on trolleys in accident and emergency—reflect the staff shortage that the Secretary of State knows exists. We are talking about 8,000 nurses, 1,500 hospital doctors and 1,000 GPs. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that his Department, he as Secretary of State and the Government will, in the near future, take the one step that, more than anything else, will guarantee good morale in the health service? Will they accept, in full and without phasing, the recommendations of the pay review bodies, so that the NHS can get back to work and do its job, and so that doctors and nurses do not lose theirs?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman does not know what is in those recommendations, and he does not know what the Government's response will be. No one would wish to play down the significance of people's pay in relation to their morale, but—as staff tell me time and again—there are other important considerations, and we are addressing those important considerations.

Mrs. Mahon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the casualty watch survey, to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred, got it wrong about the four patients in Halifax? They had not waited 17 to 24 hours. They were in an assessment unit in proper beds, being treated by proper nurses and proper doctors. The community health council has now admitted that it was wrong.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend refers to inaccuracies in the report relating to Halifax. We take any reports of such happenings extremely seriously. I have made it my business to investigate them all. One of those to which the British Broadcasting Corporation gave great publicity this morning referred to someone who, the BBC claimed, had waited 65 hours on a trolley at East Surrey hospital. That woman had come off an aircraft at Gatwick. She was believed to be suffering from malaria and was put in a separate room, which happened to be in the accident and emergency department, because it was believed by the people running the hospital that that was the best place for her to be isolated from the rest of the patients—to protect the patients and her. I do not know whether the BBC has given similar publicity to acknowledging that it was wrong.

Mr. Nicholls: With reference to the reply that the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) some moments ago, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when ward nurses compare their salary with his, they will be profoundly insulted? If he wants his earlier replies to be taken seriously, the one step that he could take today to improve morale in the national health service would be to respond to the call made last week by the Royal College

of Nursing to accept the recommendations of the independent review group, when they come, as they were accepted by the previous Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that such an assurance should be given today, or when it comes to nurses' pay, is it all generalities and humour?

Mr. Dobson: When it comes to staging pay increases, the Tories are old stagers. They have been doing it for years. I do respond to certain calls from the Royal College of Nursing. The first speech that I made in this job to the RCN annual conference made it clear that we would abandon the previous Government's crackpot arrangement whereby there was a national agreement, and then staff and management had to negotiate about whether the staff would get 0.8 or 1.1 per cent. in a local agreement. That was a waste and totally stupid, as everyone had told the previous Government. We got rid of the arrangement, which is why I got a standing ovation at the RCN annual conference.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Ian Bruce: What is the current trend in hospital waiting lists. [23417]

Mr. Viggers: If he will make a statement on progress in reducing hospital waiting lists. [23421]

Mr. Dobson: As I have said before, the Government will ensure that by the end of this Parliament, hospital waiting lists are shorter than the record levels that we inherited from the previous Government—record levels that were rising faster than at any time in the 1990s.

Mr. Bruce: My question was a short one, and that was not the answer to it. The right hon. Gentleman and his team hit the ground running when they took over the Department of Health, but surely he has realised by now that he is running in the opposite direction to the one in which he said he would go. Waiting lists are going up to record levels, and we had a report overnight about what was happening in accident and emergency departments, even though there is no flu epidemic as there was last year. The right hon. Gentleman has announced in the past week that he wants more people to go back into mental hospitals, and that he wants abortions to become easier, but he does not have the money needed because of the inflation that his Government have caused. What will he do about bringing down waiting lists now, not in five years' time?

Mr. Dobson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I did not refer to "the current trend" in waiting lists. I thought that I had explained that we inherited a record level, and that waiting lists were then rising faster than they had ever risen before. They are no longer rising faster than they have ever risen before. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, waiting lists are like a supertanker: it takes time to slow down the increase, it will take longer to stop it, and it will take even longer to turn waiting lists round, but turn them round we will.

Mr. Viggers: May I remind the Secretary of State of the Labour party manifesto, which included the very simple promise:
We will … End waiting for cancer surgery."?


Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the woman who, this week, had to wait 27 hours on a trolley while needing renal dialysis? Will he apologise to the women who need operations for breast cancer, who now have to wait twice as long for their operations under the national health service than patients in private medicine? Above all, will he apologise to all the people who voted Labour because they thought that the Government would be capable of fulfilling their promises?

Mr. Dobson: I will not apologise for any of the things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I certainly will not apologise for abandoning the eighth round of GP fundholding and transferring the £20 million that the previous Government had earmarked for the bureaucracy of fundholding, or for diverting £10 million into improved breast cancer treatment for women and £5 million into improved children's intensive care.

Mr. Truswell: On the question of tackling waiting lists, will my right hon. Friend and his team accept the thanks of my constituents for the part that they played in progressing the planning process affecting the future of Wharfedale general hospital? However, will they acknowledge the increasing anger of local people at the way in which services at the hospital are being run down, including the proposed withdrawal of 60 acute beds? Will my right hon. Friend and his team do their utmost to ensure that Wharfedale general hospital continues to be a genuine general hospital, providing a wide range of services to the surrounding communities?

Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend knows, I met a delegation from the Wharfedale general hospital recently. Although I am not supposed to issue edicts about the future of hospitals from the Dispatch Box, I think that I can safely say that it is unimaginable that that hospital should cease to be in Otley and cease to provide a wide range of services for local people. Those who are putting around stories to the contrary are misleading the local people.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not keep it a secret that his Minister of State has a 40th birthday today? I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating him on his birthday.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Dorset health authority has had substantial extra funds? I understand that these are an additional £401,000 for intensive care for children, and an additional £1.7 million for winter pressures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is tackling the problems faced by the health service in a way in which the previous Government certainly did not?

Mr. Dobson: I can confirm that my hon. Friend's figures for the extra funds that have been found for Dorset are as accurate as her recognition of the 40th birthday of my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Mr. Maples: I join in congratulating the Minister on his birthday. I think that it makes him 10 years younger than the health service. I wish that I could say the same of myself.
If certain London hospitals knew their future, would not that help to reduce waiting lists in London? The Turnberg report has, I believe, been sitting on the Secretary of State's desk for several weeks. Why is he hiding its conclusions from the public?

Mr. Dobson: I certainly received the report of the Turnberg review. I have been discussing it with my colleagues and hope shortly to publish both the report and our considered response to it.

Mr. Maples: Is not it the truth that the Turnberg committee was set up to resolve the Bart's problem and that it has not done so? It has not given the Secretary of State a convenient solution, so he will have to make up his own mind about it, but, because he is having great difficulty in making up his own mind, he dare not publish the report. May I remind him, while he is thinking about the Turnberg report, that when he set up the committee, he promised a moratorium on further rundowns and closures of London hospitals? Since then, Queen Mary's University hospital, Roehampton, and Edgware Community hospital have been run down to the point where they have effectively been closed as district general hospitals. How many more London hospitals do the Government propose to close?

Mr. Dobson: As I wrote that policy commitment, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we promised that there would be no hospital closures during the Turnberg review. There have been no hospital closures. I have read the Turnberg report and I have a good idea of the Government's response to it, but all I can say to the hon. Gentleman and his eager colleagues is watch this space.

Prescription Fraud

Mr. Dobbin: What proposals he has for tackling prescription fraud in the NHS. [23418]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): On 7 January, I announced a comprehensive programme of action, which includes plans to create a specific criminal offence of prescription charge evasion, improvements to prescription form security, the establishment of a hotline and internet websites for reporting suspected fraud and the forthcoming appointment of a fraud supremo to spearhead this initiative.

Mr. Dobbin: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the national health service loses £90 million to £100 million a year through prescription fraud and that had the NHS had access to those funds, it could have carried out something like 14,500 heart bypass operations, 68,900 cataract operations or 22,200 hip operations? To put that in a local context, my local health authority, Bury and Rochdale, did not spend anything like £100 million on setting up a health aid line for patients. Does he agree that those who are defrauding the system represent a tiny minority and that the vast majority of health workers, doctors and pharmacists are doing a sterling, honest and realistic job and deserve our help and support?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the scale of the problem which is cheating the national


health service of some £100 million every year. He is also right to say that the overwhelming majority of patients and NHS professionals are decent, law-abiding citizens who are simply doing an honest job. That is why we are determined to bear down on the few rotten apples who are not. Their activities not only defraud the taxpayer, but rob patients of resources that they deserve.

Dr. Brand: Does the Minister agree that one of the ingredients for tackling fraud, especially prescription fraud in the NHS, is to have a thriving chain of community pharmacies? Will he give the House an assurance that his Department will consider a remuneration package for community pharmacists to replace the threatened abolition of retail price maintenance in respect of over-the-counter medicines?

Mr. Milburn: In addition to their role in dispensing medicines, community pharmacists have an important role to play—for example, in helping to crack down on prescription fraud. That is why we are entering negotiations with the pharmacy profession on introducing a new scheme whereby pharmacists are rewarded appropriately when they spot counterfeit or stolen prescription forms. We want to enhance their role in that and other respects.

Dr. Fox: I am sure that the Minister will agree that a simplified prescribing system would enable us all to crack down on prescription fraud. At the moment, those who benefit from free prescriptions in one area of medicine are able to do so in others. In other words, someone who requires one life-saving medicine can claim all prescriptions free, irrespective of his or her income. How much does that cost the national health service in a year?

Mr. Milburn: I do not have the figure, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. The current system of prescription charge exemption is extremely complex and, in some cases, difficult to understand. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as part of the comprehensive spending review, we are considering how we can make the system easier to understand and simpler to administer. In addition, later this year, we shall be launching a major publicity campaign to try to get across the message to patients—who sometimes simply get it wrong—about who is exempt and who is not. In the meantime, the Government will not stand back idly and allow those who are defrauding the system to get away with it. They are cheating the system and robbing taxpayers and patients of money that should be going into patient care.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the introduction of a national identity card scheme help to root out fraud?

Mr. Milburn: Following the efficiency scrutiny report on prescription fraud, we accepted that patients who turn up and claim an exemption from the prescription charge should prove their entitlement to that exemption. That is important, and we hope that, through our discussions with the pharmacy profession, we shall be able to introduce those checks at the point of dispensing before too long.

Access to Treatment

Sir Robert Smith: What plans he has to ensure that the same access to treatment under the health service is available to every NHS patient. [23419]

Mr. Boateng: We said in our manifesto that when people are ill, the national health service will be there to help, and that access will be based on need and not on the ability to pay. We meant that, and the steps set out in our White Paper, "The New NHS" will improve consistency. We shall work with the professions to produce national service frameworks and clinical guidelines, and we shall challenge and address variations not based on the health needs and wishes of local people. This gives maximum national consistency, while still allowing appropriate local and individual responsiveness.

Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he is aware that next week Age Concern is launching an age discrimination awareness campaign, specifically on the problem of health discrimination and access to health care for the aged? Will those guidelines ensure that, regardless of age, people will have equal access to treatment under the NHS?

Mr. Boateng: I welcome Age Concern's work in this area. Our senior citizens are a valuable asset. They must be nurtured and cared for, and we are here to ensure that the NHS does just that.

Ms Walley: I welcome the steps that have been taken so far. Is the Minister aware that people in some parts of the country have worse ill health than those in other areas? There is particular concern about the health of the people in Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire compared with the whole of the west midlands. Will he consider carefully North Staffordshire's application to become a health action zone, so that we can ensure that people have fair and equal access to the national health service?

Mr. Boateng: Health action zones will, indeed, help address the real problems of inequality in our society. They are new and innovative, and will ensure that we focus on the failure of previous Governments, especially the last Government, to tackle inequality. The Conservative Government banned civil servants from using the word "inequality". Civil servants can now talk about inequalities in the NHS, and, more than that, this Government will do something about them.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that an increasing number of patients are turning to complementary therapies, because they find them effective? Does he also accept that there is a problem, because only a small number of general practitioners understand alternative and complementary medical treatments? Does he have any plans to rectify that? Is it true that the Department is about to set up an alternative health register, following the Secretary of State's discussions with the Prince of Wales?

Mr. Boateng: We very much welcome the increasing developments in the field of complementary medicine.
We believe that such treatments have a role to play, but it is important that people get good, reliable information about them. We shall help to ensure that they get just that.

Ms Beverley Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that equal opportunity for good health is as important as equal access to treatment? Does he share my concern about the gross inequality between different regions in morbidity and mortality; the chance of life itself? Will he confirm that, unlike the previous Government, one of this Government's top priorities is to tackle the health consequences of poverty?

Mr. Boateng: We shall, indeed, tackle the health consequences of poverty. There is no doubt that a lack of jobs and poor houses contributes towards ill health. Sadly, the previous Government did nothing about that. The Minister for Public Health will shortly produce a Green Paper on this subject. I assure Opposition Members that it will address the issues that have been raised.

Bureaucracy (Essex)

Mr. Bob Russell: What plans he has to reduce bureaucracy in (a) North Essex health authority, (b) Essex Rivers Healthcare, (c) North Essex Mental Health Trust and (d) New Possibilities Health Trust. [23420]

Mr. Milburn: In December 1997, I announced that, in 1998–99, an £80 million saving will be secured from reductions in management costs for investment in front-line patient services. Regional offices will shortly set targets for all health authorities and trusts to reduce management costs.

Mr. Russell: May I suggest to the Minister that further savings could be made if quangos were abolished and those trusts were amalgamated and brought under some form of local accountability—thereby releasing thousands of pounds into the front-line services that he mentioned? We have also the nonsense in which trusts operate side by side. I draw his attention to, for example, Colchester general hospital, which operates from a cramped site because the next-door NHS trust is busily selling off that site. Why do we not bring back the NHS under one control, so that it is the people's NHS?

Mr. Milburn: That is a very radical approach for the hon. Gentleman to take, and a useful policy initiative at which we shall take a good, close look. Meanwhile, as he is aware, a process of trust mergers is under way across the country. However, those mergers will occur as a product of local discussion and local agreement rather than because of national edict. If local discussions are occurring in his area and if they produce a trust merger proposal that results in improvements in patient care, Ministers will examine the process very carefully. The acid test, however, is whether that type of structural change leads to improvements for patients.

Mr. Ruffley: Does the Minister understand that—although he talks tough on cutting costs—he is proposing to add a new dimension of bureaucracy with the White Paper's primary care commissioning units? What will be the cost of that new bureaucracy? Has his Department calculated the cost? If so, what is it?

Mr. Milburn: The answer is that we shall be cutting bureaucracy by £1 billion during the course of this Parliament.

NHS Trusts

Angela Smith: What proposals he has for promoting shared responsibility between NHS trusts for local services. [23423]

Mr. Milburn: The plans in the recent White Paper "The New NHS" herald the end of competition within the national health service. We plan to introduce a new statutory duty of partnership that will clearly set the requirement for NHS trusts to work together with each other, with other health service organisations and with other local agencies responsible for promoting good health.

Angela Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. However, does he share my concern that the South Essex health authority—despite the extra £17 million that the Government have given to it—is still implementing wide-ranging cuts in front-line services? If health authorities and trusts will follow the line described by the Minister, they could raise the necessary money by efficiency savings and not by cuts.

Mr. Milburn: When any of those issues are discussed locally, it is important that the consequences for patient care are thoroughly investigated. The Government want big improvements in efficiency and quality in all parts of the national health service—which is why we will be bearing down on bureaucracy and why we are introducing a new performance framework to measure how individual trusts and health authorities are performing. In short, we will be expecting trusts to be comparing rather than competing.

Mr. Rowe: Is the Minister aware that the Kent and Canterbury hospital in east Kent has developed services with two other hospitals—William Harvey hospital, in Ashford, and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital, in Margate—which have reached a standard that the Royal Colleges greatly applaud? Is he further aware that the East Kent health authority now proposes to destroy the central hospital in that co-operation? Will he give an assurance that when, as is certain to happen, the community health council applies to the Secretary of State for a review, he will take those admirable developments—which he commends in principle—into account?

Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, consultation is currently under way in east Kent, led by the health authority. If, as he expects, any of the area's community health councils object to the results of that consultation and they land on Ministers' desks, of course we will take a proper and full assessment of the consequence for patient care.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Skinner: When he expects to announce the results of the review of the NHS with particular reference to waiting lists. [23424]

Mr. Milburn: On 18 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a wide-ranging programme of action to ensure that fewer patients are waiting for admission to national health service hospitals


by the end of this Parliament. The review of the NHS, to which my hon. Friend referred, is part of the Government's comprehensive spending review. In his statement to the House on 11 June, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury advised that the review would take around 12 months to complete.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, to turn this supertanker around, he will need money? Does he accept that, over the past few months, the NHS has received money over and above that included in the Tory spending limits—which I recommend as a good idea? Will he ensure that, in order to get waiting lists down, he takes account of the fact that there is already an extra £10 billion of tax income in this financial year? Will he tell his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the NHS wants a big slice of that? While he is talking to the Chancellor about using some of the money, will he also tell him that, instead of phasing in pay awards for nurses and others, he should pay them, like Members of Parliament, in one fell swoop?

Mr. Milburn: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is aware of my hon. Friend's views. My hon. Friend will be aware that, since the general election, the Government have invested an extra £1,500 million in front-line patient care. As he is also aware, the Government are committed to real-term increases in NHS funding not just next year but each and every year.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is well aware that it has been increasingly difficult to get people who suffer from mental illness into hospital for appropriate care. It has been even more difficult to get people into hospital who require long-stay care for the treatment of mental problems. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the courage that he has shown finally to change the policy on community care for those suffering from mental health problems and disability, which is so often associated with mental handicap. Will the proposals that he hopes to put forward, which I appreciate will cost money, enable people with appropriate problems to gain access to hospital care and long-stay care if they need it—totally in accordance with the wishes of organisations such as SANELINE, which campaigns so well for the mentally ill?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind words about the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Sometimes, there has been naivete about the potential benefits to all patients of care in the community. Of course, for some patients, the policy works, and works extremely well. But for others, it does not, has not and will not work. That is why we must strike an appropriate balance between care in the community, intermediate care, 24-hour nurse care, and, where it is needed, acute care in hospitals for severely ill patients.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the sort of situation that was described to me by a consultant in my local hospital? He told me that he had to refer 300 patients back to their doctors for foot and ankle treatment because, under the guidelines laid down by the previous Government, he was simply not allowed to increase the waiting time for such patients. Is he aware

that that means that there is a huge unmet need, which is one of the reasons why the Government will have many problems in trying to reduce waiting lists? Should not we really be blaming the Conservatives for not meeting the demand when it was needed?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government inherited a very difficult position on waiting lists, which, as we have made clear from day one, will take time to remedy. We are committed to having fewer people waiting for hospital treatment by the end of this Parliament. In addition, we shall make progress year on year towards achieving that objective. For example, by the end of March, we shall eliminate the need for anyone to wait more than 18 months for hospital treatment. We shall then set further targets for improvement. There will be incremental improvement every year towards our objective of having fewer people waiting for treatment.

Community Hospitals

Mr. Breed: What are the Government's plans for developing community hospitals. [23427]

Mr. Dobson: We want to promote a health service close to home. In some places, that will involve community hospitals providing a wider range of services. However, they must have high standards and they must provide good value for money. Our White Paper proposals will make it possible for primary care groups to run such local hospitals if they decide that that is best for the patients in their area.

Mr. Breed: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he accept that there continues to be widespread concern throughout Cornwall about the health authority's proposal to close four community hospitals, which are a vital part of health care provision in a largely rural area? They provide good quality care that is accessible to a large proportion of the population.

Mr. Dobson: I understand the concerns of people in Cornwall about the health authority's proposals to close four community hospitals. At one point, the health authority, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, said that the problem was caused by the Government keeping the authority short of funds. In an outburst of honesty, the chief executive then admitted on television that he would like to close the hospitals whatever the level of funding. I cannot issue any pronunciamento on the future of those hospitals. If the community health council decides to object, the decision will be a matter for me. I have made it clear that we would like to promote community hospitals because we want people throughout the country, not just in Cornwall, to be able to turn to an efficient, effective, high-quality health service that is close to home. We do not want people to have to travel vast distances for relatively straightforward treatment.

Mr. McNulty: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to correct some misinformation given out by the Conservative Front-Benchers during this Question Time? Far from being in doubt, the future of Edgware hospital is secure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 120-plus organisations and individuals who took part in the Edgware review, which has been sanctioned by the


Department of Health, deserve our congratulations? Edgware will be a model community hospital for urban areas and the community will stay involved while the plans are being implemented.

Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to all those involved locally and in the Department, including the 40th birthday boy, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has contributed to sorting the issue out. A trail-blazing effort has been made in Edgware to create a community hospital in an urban area providing first-class services that local people want.

Mr. Brazier: Does the Secretary of State agree that the views of the community, particularly those of the primary carers—the general practitioners—should play a particularly important role in his decision on the future of the Kent and Canterbury acute hospital and the Whitstable and Tankerton community hospital? Does he further agree that the community has every reason to have sent me 630 letters already, which I have sent on to him, on the future of the two hospitals?

Mr. Dobson: I shall bear all representations in mind, but there are a few crocodile tears from Conservative Members. Most of the closure proposals come from boards dominated by chairmen and non-executive members appointed by the previous Government. I am glad that some of them are no longer there.

Nurses (Primary Care)

Mr. Pond: What proposals he has for boosting the role of nurses in the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 pilots. [23428]

Ms Jowell: The National Health Service (Primary Care) Act personal medical services pilot scheme offers considerable opportunities to boost the role of nurses in the development of primary care and community health services. For the first time, nurses can lead in the delivery of primary care services, including employing general practitioners.

Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that this is the first time in the history of the national health service that nurses have been given the green light—by the new Labour Government—to run primary health care in that way, as in the new minor injuries unit at the Gravesend and North Kent hospital in my constituency? Does she agree that giving nurses that major role will result in an improvement in the quality of primary care services?

Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is right that the measures taken by the Government in approving pilot schemes under the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act put nurses in the driving seat. That is good for nursing and good for patients. It would not have happened had it not been for the insistence of those who are now in government, when they were in opposition, that the provision be extended to nurses. It was the joint efforts of

the present Government, when in opposition, together with nursing organisations, that delivered that good deal for nurses, which is also a good deal for patients.

Mr. Lansley: The Observer tells me that I have the honour to represent the healthiest constituency in Britain, and I would like to keep it that way.

Madam Speaker: I am your constituent.

Mr. Lansley: Indeed, Madam Speaker—an example of good health, if I may say so. In that respect, we especially value the role of nurses, including those employed in the community health trust to provide health visiting and school nursing services. In advance of the publication of the Green Paper on public health, will the Minister act to prevent redundancies next week in that community health trust, because they would diminish the universal screening services that it provides, which we regard as of considerable importance to the maintenance of public health in the area?

Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), I recently met staff and representatives of the Lifespan trust to discuss some of the difficulties that they were facing. I understand that the trust has recently announced that although it has accepted some requests for voluntary redundancy, the need for compulsory redundancies has been averted through staff turnover and redeployment. The trust has reviewed children's health services and is implementing a new model that will be responsive to identified clinical needs.

Social Exclusion Unit

Mr. Watts: What action he is taking to support the work of the social exclusion unit. [23429]

Mr. Boateng: The work of the social exclusion unit is being supported right the way across Government, by all Departments. Our Department is working closely with the unit as it tackles its initial priority areas, and many other departmental initiatives within the Department—those relating not only to health but to personal social services—have a direct bearing on the wider issues of social exclusion. We shall continue to work on those and to take matters forward with the health action zones, and with our work on drug and alcohol misuse and on family support and early intervention. That is all about tackling the underlying causes of social exclusion, which were too long neglected by the Conservatives.

Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but may I draw to his attention the fact that my constituents in St. Helens have been left with a legacy of Tory Government reforms that mean that they now have a two-tier health service, with whole areas of poverty-stricken communities excluded from really good health services? What action does the Minister intend to take to ensure that resources are made available to communities such as St. Helens?

Mr. Boateng: We recognise the needs of communities such as St. Helens. Indeed, I was up in my hon. Friend's part of the world only last Friday, and what is happening


there is that we are beginning to see the spirit of co-operation replacing the ethos of competition and division that characterised the Conservatives' period in government. It is all about co-operation, not competition. The Government will take forward that agenda, which is welcomed by the people of this country.

Mr. Clappison: Does the Minister agree that ambitious public health targets are of the greatest value to the poorest and neediest people in society? Will he therefore give an assurance that his Government are not considering any watering down of the ambitious public health targets under "The Health of the Nation" strategy established by the previous Government?

Mr. Boateng: We need no lectures from Conservative Members about public health. They did sweet FA about public health when they were in government. We are tackling the issues.

Mrs. Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that poor health in constituencies such as mine is the result of poverty, unemployment and poor housing? Will he applaud the initiatives already taken in my constituency, and especially in the Vauxhall area, where health and social services workers are making joint efforts to improve health? Will that encourage him to award Liverpool the status of a health action zone?

Mr. Boateng: The sting is in the tail. We must indeed bear down on inequality across Government, focusing the activities of Departments and recognising that when one Department takes a lead others will have a role to play. That is what it is all about. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health is promoting the work of the social exclusion unit, right the way across the ministerial team, recognising that our work needs to be linked with the good work done by other Departments. That is how the Government will take forward the agenda.

Points of Order

Mr. Nick Gibb: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In Social Security questions yesterday, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the Secretary of State said:
We sought and considered the advice of the Government Actuary … and we changed the rebates … we sought that advice and acted properly on it."—[Official Report, 26 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 5.]
I raise the matter because it is now clear that she misled the House, no doubt inadvertently. The Government Actuary's report recommends rebates higher than those announced by the Government, who also announced greater reductions in the contracted-out money purchase schemes than were recommended.
It is clear that the Government did not in fact follow the Government Actuary's advice. Have you, Madam Speaker, been informed by the Secretary of State that she intends to come to the House to put the record straight and, if not, can you advise me, as I am a new Member, what action can be taken to correct the record?

Madam Speaker: Indeed I can. I heard the hon. Gentleman out because I believe that he is not raising a so-called point of order facetiously but is quite serious, whereas most points of order that I hear are not serious. I want to tell him very clearly that it was not a point of order. [Interruption.] It is very important. It was not a point of order. Hon. Members may no doubt often disagree with what Ministers say and with the answers that they give, but I cannot rule on the matter that the hon. Gentleman has put to me. He, and any other hon. Members who are concerned about Ministers' answers and think that they are misleading, should use the Order Paper to bring the matter to the attention of the entire House and of the media. It is not a point of order, because it is not a matter on which I can rule. I hope that I have been helpful.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For good reasons, I am sure, the shadow Secretary of State left Health questions halfway through, and I am certain that he made his apologies; but he has commented in the past to his fellow Conservatives that their party could not win when it came to the national health service. Given the low priority that they give to questions, leaving only one shadow Minister on the Front Bench, I wonder whether Conservative Members have approached you requesting a shorter Question Time.

Madam Speaker: The shadow Secretary of State for Health had another appointment, and he apologised to me quite properly because he had to leave the Front Bench.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Again on a health matter, could you be like others who chair our courts, such as magistrates, and help Back Benchers to hold the Government to account a bit more? We were clearly told through the general press and through direct information from the Department of Health that we were to have the statement on public health today.

Madam Speaker: By the press?

Mr. Hughes: First, by the press, and secondly by civil servants in the Department. In the event, we are not having a statement. Sometimes, quite understandably, there are delays, but I ask you to be more like a magistrate who, when the Crown Prosecution Service suddenly finds that it cannot proceed with the work of the day, must at least come and explain why the matter has been put off to another occasion.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the entire House know when statements are to be made because they are on the annunciator screen soon after 12 o'clock. He should not worry about the press or anything else. When a Minister is to come to the Dispatch Box and it is on the annunciator screen, the House knows that there is to be a statement.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties currently have large postbags about the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill, both of which are to be debated on Friday this week. I have been trying for some time to get copies of those Bills, so that I can write to my constituents about my views on them. Unfortunately, neither has been printed yet—the Bills are not available. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] I wonder whether you can make inquiries as to why we still do not have them.

Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, of course. It is the hon. Member promoting the Bill who produces it for printing. There are murmurs in the House that these Bills are ready. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to check again, but I will do so as soon as I am able to leave the Chair. It is for the hon. Member who has the Bill to see that it is printed and made available to others.

Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may not have heard, but the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), used what I thought was a most inelegant abbreviation; inelegant at the best of times but, in terms of parliamentary conduct, thoroughly unbecoming of a Minister of the Crown. Could you rule whether "sweet FA" is parliamentary language?

Madam Speaker: I am not certain whether it is unparliamentary, but it is certainly most undesirable. I hope that hon. Members, and particularly Ministers of the Crown, will use better language in the future in the House.

Home Zones

Mrs. Helen Brinton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable highway authorities to make provision in residential areas for the designation of highways where pedestrians and pedal cyclists have priority in the carriageway over mechanically powered vehicles, for the purposes of promoting safety and of improving the environment; and for related purposes.
A home zone is a street or group of streets where pedestrians and cyclists have priority and cars travel at a top speed of 10 mph. Drivers have to give way to pedestrians, and cyclists, and are normally responsible for any injury caused to them. The change in the status of the road is clearly indicated through signing, traffic calming measures and landscaping features such as seating, other street furniture and plants.
In some streets, parking is rearranged to make better use of space—especially if the residents are part of a community car-sharing scheme. I should emphasise to the House that residents must be in favour of creating a home zone and should be involved at the design stage. There are at present no home zones in this country, but they have proved to be popular and effective on the continent of Europe, in Austria, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands.
In December, I was pleased to host an event in the House, sponsored by the Children's Play Council, when we were treated to a presentation of what home zones looked like by a speaker from the Netherlands. It was clear to me—and to everyone there—that they are most attractive places, which are of benefit to the whole community; not just the people who live there, but visitors. They improve people's quality of life, by creating safer, healthier public space, which promotes good community relations.
More people are encouraged to go out into the streets, leading to less street crime and burglary. It is safe for young children to go out beyond their own front door—a freedom that older hon. Members will remember from their childhood, but which is denied to our children today.
Article 31 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, ratified by the United Kingdom in 1991, recognises the right of the child to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts. Obviously, that is healthier for children than staying indoors, and it is more environmentally sustainable than requiring parents to drive them to further-flung physical activities. It encourages the perception of physical activity as part of the routine of everyday life, starting as young as possible, which will also help to reduce dependence on the car in future generations.
There has been a great decline in the number of children walking to school. In 1971, about 70 per cent. of children aged seven walked to school; by 1990, the figure had declined to less than 10 per cent. Of 10 and 11-year-olds, in 1971, more than 90 per cent. walked to school, but in 1990 the figure was down to slightly more than 50 per cent.
The United Kingdom has the worst record in western Europe for child pedestrian accidents, most of which happen within a very short distance of the child's home.
In home zones, children have a chance to learn about traffic without risk of injury—and, by the way, there is no evidence that when they then go into ordinary streets, they are more at risk than they would otherwise have been, as has been asserted.
Older people and people with a disability find it safer to walk in the street in home zones.
In December 1997, at the event in the House of Commons that I mentioned, we heard from residents of a self-contained group of Victorian streets, the Methleys, in Leeds, where there is already overwhelming support for its becoming a home zone—even to the extent that resident drivers undertook a two-week trial of a 10 mph speed limit. I found it especially moving and touching to hear those children describe in the House the difference that the trial made to their lives and all the activities that they could now safely engage in. They could actually use those expensive bikes and rollerblades that all our children today demand and then hardly ever use because it is not safe for them to use them. I am very glad to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton), who represents those residents.
Research conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 1996 found that estates with traffic calming and good space in the front street provided the best environment for children. Nearly one child in four engaged in all kinds of healthy activity in such areas—three times the level in poorly designed estates. The authors of that report concluded that streets in estates should have a speed limit of 10 mph.
I shall now briefly outline the law as it stands. Section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows the imposition of variable speed limits, indicated by traffic signs. For non-trunk roads, the power rests with local authorities, but all proposals by them for areas to have speed limits below 30 mph must be approved by the Secretary of State.
Under current departmental guidelines, draft applications for reduced speed orders must include several features, including the following. There should be engineering measures, such as road humps and narrowed gateways into the zone. The emergency services must be consulted. Usually the distance from any point in the zone to the boundary of the zone should be no more than 1 km.
To date, those provisions have been used to create 20 mph zones, but the same legislation would enable lower speed limits to be established. I believe that 20 mph zones have been very successful; nearly 300 schemes are in operation.
I understand that Ministers intend to issue new regulations to make it easier for local authorities to set up such zones, and that the new rules may be in place by the summer. I should welcome that move.
Highway authorities also have powers under the Traffic Calming Act 1992 to introduce measures such as buildouts, pinch points, gateways and rumble devices. Highway authorities can use traffic regulation orders to control traffic, to avoid danger to persons or other traffic using the road; to prevent use of the road by vehicular traffic in a manner that is unsuitable to the existing character of the road; to preserve the character of a road that is especially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot; or to preserve or improve the amenities of the area through which the road runs. They can also introduce 20 mph zones under the legislation.
However, highway authorities cannot reverse priority on a road from vehicles to pedestrians. The only provision in law for according such priority is on a pedestrian crossing. Even in pedestrianised streets, pedestrians enjoy priority not as a legal right but in a de facto fashion, as relatively few vehicles are allowed to use such streets at any one time.
Under section 29 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended in 1991, local authorities may prohibit or restrict vehicles using a street so that it can be used as a street playground, and that is probably the closest equivalent that Britain has to a home zone. However, if a local authority tried to make an order under those provisions to replicate the features of a home zone, its decision would be open to legal challenge, as it would be hard to demonstrate that the zone was being used primarily as a playground for children.
Therefore, we need clear powers to reverse the priority to pedestrians from vehicles. Primary legislation would be required to do that and to give local authorities the power to define which roads should be covered by such a provision.
My Bill seeks to enable the creation of home zones where residents want them. That power will be welcomed by local authorities and the general public.
We all know that most residential streets today are blighted by motor traffic. Too many people are driving too fast along streets that were never designed to accommodate so many cars. Parallel issues on rural roads need to be addressed at some point, but 80 per cent. of the population live in built-up areas.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's 10 minutes are up.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Bob Blizzard, Mr. Geraint Davies, Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mrs. Diana Organ, Mr. Lembit Öpik, Mr. Jonathan Shaw and Ms Joan Walley.

HOME ZONES

Mrs. Helen Brinton accordingly presented a Bill to enable highway authorities to make provision in residential areas for the designation of highways where pedestrians and pedal cyclists have priority in the carriageway over mechanically powered vehicles, for the purposes of promoting safety and of improving the environment; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March, and to be printed [Bill 113].

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Education (Student Loans) Act 1998

Opposition Day

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Protection of the Countryside

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. I have also had to limit Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes. More than 30 hon. Members wish to speak, so I hope that Front-Bench spokesmen will note what I have said and not deprive Back Benchers of time.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the recent decisions by the Government to allow large-scale development in the countryside; is deeply concerned that the protection of the green belt and green spaces may be further weakened by the Government in the future; and urges the Government to strengthen protection for the countryside, while encouraging the renewal of towns and cities, by increasing the share of new housing which is built on previously developed land.
In the past few weeks, public concern about the threat to our countryside from new development, and particularly, but not exclusively, from housing, has been mounting. The instinct of the people, their alarm that much of our green and pleasant land is about to be covered in concrete, is right. That threat is the direct result of the actions taken by the Government since 1 May.
Even in the days since the Conservative party announced the subject of this afternoon's debate, there has been a slight greening of the Government's rhetoric. Alas, their actions belie their words. The Secretary of State's latest newspaper article shows that he still does not understand the issue. For more than half the Cabinet, comfortably housed at taxpayers' expense in official residences, the problem may not seem very immediate. Ministers who have just squandered £60,000 of our cash on wallpaper may not need to look out of the window.
For the rest of us who have never authorised the spending of £100,000 of public money to cover the annual cost of our flat, the threat is a reality brought home day after day by one Government blunder after another. Those blunders show that Labour does not understand why the countryside should be protected. They show that Labour does not know how to protect the countryside and does not even care about the consequences of not protecting it. The Prime Minister may speak of hard choices; the Secretary of State makes only concrete choices.
The Government's housing mistakes cannot even be explained by their hostility towards rural areas. Starving the countryside of cash to reward Labour's strongholds in the urban north is bad enough; indeed, it is what we are coming to expect of a Government who put a Minister whose tax affairs are reported to be the subject of investigation in not one but two countries in charge of the Inland Revenue. However, while some parts of the Government seem to adopt the standards of a banana republic, until now at least there has usually been some rationale behind their actions.
When it comes to housing and planning, even that has disappeared. Covering the countryside with houses is not only bad for the people who live, work and play there and for the environment that they have cherished for generations; it is equally damaging for our towns and cities. Whenever the Secretary of State allows new homes to be built in places previously thought to be protected, he destroys the incentive to regenerate our urban heartlands.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that people in the borough of Elmbridge in Surrey, which has met all the policy planning guidance criteria for a green belt and which is already under development and infrastructure pressure, are alarmed about the casual language used by the Government? That will inevitably increase development pressure and speculation in Elmbridge, which covers my constituency.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was shocked earlier today when he told me about the alarm in Elmbridge, but I entirely understand why it has arisen. Each time the Secretary of State inflicts new homes on countryside that is miles away from places of work, he adds to the congestion on our roads and increases carbon dioxide emissions.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Birtenshaw Hall farm development on the fringe of Bolton, for which the local Labour council refused permission, only for it to be granted by the Secretary of State in the previous Administration, much against the wishes of almost the entire local population? Is he further aware that in the past few weeks Bolton metropolitan council has had to donate £1 million to Barratt as compensation for trying to protect that land?

Mr. Yeo: As I shall explain to the House, under the previous Conservative Government, the target for the number of homes being built on previously developed sites rose from 38 to 50 per cent. in the past decade, which is a substantial achievement.
For half a century, the choice of where to build new homes has been shaped by a planning system understood by builders, implemented by local councils, accepted by the public and respected by Ministers. In just nine short months, the Secretary of State has undermined that system. He has attacked the role of local authorities and condemned huge tracts of countryside to the bulldozer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?] As my hon. Friends point out, he has not even had the courtesy to turn up to the debate on the havoc that he has caused.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has overturned the exhaustive public examination conducted by an inspector on West Sussex county council and insisted on adding further homes to an already extraordinarily high target, to make a total of 50,000 homes? That is unachievable. Will he condemn out of hand that callous move and acknowledge that West Sussex does not have the infrastructure to take those new houses?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that, and will be glad to learn that I intend to deal with it later.
The Government have permitted developments that prove that the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning spoke the truth last September when he said that the
green belt is up for grabs.
The Government have refused to accept the need for a higher target for the proportion of new homes to be built on previously developed sites beyond the 50 per cent. that is currently being achieved. They have displayed contempt for the local councils responsible for planning and ignored the advice of independent planning inspectors and of their own chosen panels of planning experts.
Three new schemes show how little the Secretary of State cares for the green belt. Earlier this month, he gave the go-ahead for 10,000 new homes on green belt near Stevenage, a scheme opposed locally by the Conservatives. The scheme was steamrollered through Hertfordshire county council by a shoddy conspiracy between the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties cooked up to prevent the issue from even being voted on by the full council. Does the Minister agree with the Labour leader on North Hertfordshire district council, who said:
We feel very let down. The Government claims to be committed to protecting the environment and regenerating urban areas and now we have them supporting plans to rape 2000 acres of Green Belt"?

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the Thatcher Government, of which I believe he was a member? It became the rule for every local authority that the 15 per cent. of planning application appeals that were allowed under the previous Administration went up to something like 50 per cent. It became impossible for local authorities to defend their green belt because the market philosophy dominated 18 years of Conservative rule and Conservative country planning.

Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is off message. The Government have been trying to say that they believe in the market philosophy. The debate is about where homes should be built. Our concern is that under this Government, they are being built more and more often in the wrong place.
The second recent decision was when the Secretary of State, only last week, approved 2,500 more homes in the green belt outside Newcastle despite the existence of 4,000 empty homes in one part of the city alone. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that that decision will accelerate the decline of inner-city areas such as his?
Thirdly, last August, after dithering for months about the industrial development of 150 acres of farmland in the green belt in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the Secretary of State finally overruled the independent planning inspector who had recommended that the development should not be permitted. The land in question just happened to be owned by Labour-controlled Birmingham city council. The decision was sneaked out in the first week of the summer parliamentary recess.

Mr. Jim Cousins: The hon. Gentleman has quoted with approval my remarks about the Newcastle green belt, which it is


certainly my intention to defend and to go on defending. Does he agree that what is needed now is a tax on speculative green-field development?

Mr. Yeo: Once again, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is on message. It is certainly true that the old Labour solution to every problem is, "Let's have a tax increase," but, judging by some of what I have read in the newspapers, I thought that there was at least some prospect that the solution to the problem might be a tax cut, in the form of a cut in VAT on conversion work. We shall see.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the problems with the Government's change in policy is that even land that the Government say should never be developed immediately acquires a premium? In my constituency, the result is that those interested in creating the Colne valley park find that they cannot buy land for that park, because—even if the land is zoned to be green belt until kingdom come—those willing to sell say that there is a premium on the land, as it may be capable of being developed hereafter.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has put his finger on another important point—that the malign consequences of starting to weaken the protection of the green belt go extremely wide.
Different factors applied in each of the three cases that I described, but the outcome was the same: building was allowed when it should have been prevented; building will occur on sites that were previously protected; and building will go ahead solely because of a decision by the Labour Government. The power lay with the Secretary of State; he exercised it and, in each case, he made the wrong choice. Instead of covering acres of newsprint with misleading green claims that will not save a single blade of grass, he should stop covering acres of countryside with new houses.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under the Regional Development Agencies Bill, the Secretary of State arrogates to himself even greater powers to make such decisions, thereby entirely ignoring the views of elected local councils, such as my local council in Bromley?

Mr. Yeo: I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that I shall table amendments to that Bill, which is in Standing Committee next week, to try to reverse those powers.
The purpose of the green belt is to prevent urban sprawl—the sort of sprawl the Secretary of State seems so keen to encourage. Perhaps his ambition, as he cruises home in his gas-guzzling, chauffeur-driven Jaguar, is to see urban sprawl along every mile of the A1. Perhaps what he means by an integrated transport strategy is to build more and more homes on each side of every road in country. Whether or not that is his ambition, it is likely to be his achievement, because what he has done is to invite developers to dust down every planning application that they have not pursued for years because it had so little chance of success. He has warned councils not to bother to waste staff time and taxpayers' cash to fight

applications on the green belt, because the Secretary of State will allow them through anyway. He has kicked in the teeth every protester who wants to save his or her own environment. As Simon Jenkins wrote in The Times last week:
The effect is to abandon all green-belt zoning round London and other cities … Mr. Prescott has forged that most crushing of planning tools, a precedent.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does the hon. Gentleman regret the decisions of the former Secretary of State, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, who allowed all sorts of developments all over the place in the open countryside, contrary to all sorts of recently developed local plans, especially in my constituency? Does he regret that, when councils complained to Mr. Ridley, his response was, "The more they squeal, the more I know I'm right"?

Mr. Yeo: No, I regret nothing about my former right hon. Friend.
The green belt is only one part of the picture. The countryside contains huge areas that have never enjoyed green-belt protection, and those areas are also in danger. At present, half of all new housing is built on previously developed sites—a proportion that has risen from only 38 per cent. in 1985. That was good progress under the Conservative Government, but it was still not enough. The present consumption of green-field sites is unsustainable, which is why at the election we pledged to build more than 60 per cent. of new homes on previously developed sites. We believe that the target should be two thirds—a target which is attainable and realistic.
Last year, the present Minister for London and Construction told Planning Week that our target was "a recipe for disaster". Does the Secretary of State read Planning Week, I wonder? Has he talked to his ministerial colleagues? The Secretary of State now says that he wants to do better than 50 per cent. What is the Government's target now, and do they understand that, whatever it is, it will be credible only if it is backed up by decisions that are consistent with it?
New homes will be built on previously developed sites only if the Government send out the right signals. Developers respond to what the Government are doing, not to what they are saying—and what the Government are doing is removing old protections and destroying the countryside where people go for walks and enjoy beautiful landscapes, and where sometimes there is silence during the day and darkness during the night.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Amid all the rhetoric, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that in 18 years the previous Government did nothing to reform a planning system which was deeply centralised, which was top-down in principle and which offered nothing to local people who wanted it to reflect housing need, and the need for environmental sustainability and capacity in their communities? Does he also recognise that the present Government have sound policies, which offer, at regional level, an opportunity to make the system "bottom-up"? The previous Government sold the pass on


planning development and housing development; this Government are taking major steps to democratise the system.

Mr. Yeo: Is there a 10-minute rule for interventions as well, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: No, but I can ensure that hon. Members who make long interventions are not called to speak.

Mr. Yeo: I am grateful for that, Madam Speaker.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that it is not rhetoric when 10,000 homes are built on green belt in Stevenage. It is not rhetoric when 150 acres of green belt in the west midlands are covered by industrial development. It is not rhetoric when 2,500 homes are built on green belt outside Newcastle. Those are facts, not rhetoric, and they are facts which result from this Government's decisions.

Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend has heard Labour Members mention the needs of local communities. Is he aware of the proposal for a new town at Broadclyst to house some 8,000 people? That proposal is on the agenda because Labour-controlled Exeter city council refused to carry out full audits of its brown-field sites. It has nothing to do with the community in my constituency; my constituents are happy with things as they are. The aim is to impose the requirements of city dwellers on those in the countryside.

Mr. Yeo: That is a powerful example of the way in which an urban-based Labour-controlled council is riding roughshod over the interests of people in the countryside and the long-term environmental interests of the area.
The Secretary of State has claimed that he wants
to decentralise decision-making on many issues—including the regional provision of land to meet regional housing need.
He recently wrote:
Planning will remain clearly under local democratic control.
In practice, yet again, the Secretary of State's actions belie his words.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) referred to West Sussex. The county council concluded that 37,900 homes could be accommodated by 2011—a view which was shared by the panel of experts appointed by the Secretary of State himself to examine the matter. Suddenly, the importance of local democratic control and the wish to decentralise decision making flew out of the window; the Secretary of State decided to inflict an extra 12,800 homes on the county.
I wonder whether the Minister agrees with the Labour leader of West Sussex county council, who said:
This is the starkest possible illustration that the Government has no intention of trying to provide a greater share of the … new homes said to be required by 2016 on brown field sites rather than on green field sites in the countryside.

Mr. David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the basic problem for many rural areas such as Somerset, which I represent, is the methodology used to predict housing need, and the

"predict and provide" philosophy that has been the on-going policy of both the previous and the present Government?

Mr. Yeo: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Regardless of whether the Government have a "predict and provide" philosophy, they will undermine the system if they bust apart the protection of the green belt, overrule their own expert panel and the all-party agreement on a county council, and force more and more housing. It is nothing to do with "predict and provide"; we must get the principles of the planning system right.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the case of West Sussex and the examination in public, the results of which the Secretary of State unilaterally ripped up, the work and effort of the councils and environmental groups that went into that examination in public were described as trail-blazing, innovatory and of a very high level of technical competence?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend points out what a disgraceful decision it was on the part of the Secretary of State to overrule that agreement.
The Secretary of State has claimed that the Government want to move away from the old "predict and provide" philosophy. Will he put his money where his mouth is and admit today that that is what he wants to do? He was utterly wrong at every stage in the case of West Sussex. Or is his claim that he wants to give up that system just so much green chatter dictated to him by the Prime Minister's office—words whose meaning he does not even understand?

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to all that bad news about West Sussex, the decision taken means that 60 per cent. of those houses will be built on green-field sites?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right to point out that that could well be the consequence of the decision.
I urge hon. Members from all parts of the House to join us in the Lobby, and to remember the views and needs of their constituencies. I urge Labour Members in particular to reflect on whether No. 10 shares the views of the Secretary of State. Might there perhaps be a change of policy just around the corner? Has the Prime Minister got wind of the possibility of a Conservative party campaign on the issue? Is this another example where the bumbling and confusion of the Minister responsible has forced the Prime Minister to step in?
The green belt is important. It serves both town and countryside. It will be destroyed at our peril, and the Conservative party will defend it. The countryside is important. It is not there to be covered in concrete. How can a Government who claim to govern in the interests of all the people be so consistently contemptuous of the views of those who live in rural areas?
The towns also are important. The people who live there deserve consideration, too. All those interests coincide.

Mr. Mike Hall: rose—

Mr. Yeo: Too late.
Allowing developers a free rein damages town and country alike. The Government have made a disastrous start to their planning policy. They have already done irretrievable damage, but a change now would be better than nothing.
The choice was put simply last week by a Labour peer, the noble Lord Rogers, who asked:
Are we going to revitalise our run-down cities by building in them or are we going to start abandoning them and building in the countryside?
The Government could give the right answer to that question this afternoon, by admitting their errors and reversing their decisions on Newcastle, Hertfordshire, the west midlands and West Sussex.
The Government must give three assurances without qualification: first, that they will not weaken the protection of the green belt in any way; secondly, that they will raise the target for building new homes on previously developed sites to the Conservative party target of two thirds; and thirdly, that they will not again interfere with or overrule the decisions of independent planning inspectors or of local authorities seeking to protect their environment.
All those assurances are needed, whether the projected number of new houses is 2 million, 3 million, 4 million or 5 million. They will be needed, even if the old "predict and provide" method is scrapped. Those assurances are needed now. The Government can start to regain credibility on this issue only if they accept the Opposition motion, which I commend to the House.

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
recognises that it was a Labour Government that created the planning system which has done so much to protect the countryside and promote sustainable development; welcomes the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside, including green belts, and to regenerating towns and cities; recognises that the Government is shortly to announce its decisions on the way forward on planning for housing; is confident that the interests of all citizens, both the 80 per cent. and more who live in towns and cities, and those living in the countryside, will be considered; welcomes the importance that the Government attaches to revitalising towns and cities and making the best possible use of brownfield sites and existing buildings to meet housing demand; and believes that the regional planning conferences should be given greater say in reaching decisions on the most sustainable solutions for providing decent homes in line with the Government's recently announced policy for modernising the planning system and using regional planning to find integrated solutions to the problems of economic development, housing and transport".
For the past nine months we have heard nothing but scaremongering from Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, and today we have had to listen to the complete hypocrisy of the Opposition junior spokesman on the environment, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo).
If Conservatives are such defenders of the countryside, why did they lose so many seats last May in the general election? The reason is simple: people do not trust them. It was the Conservative Government who let the housing market collapse. It was the Conservative Government who

left us with the legacy of urban sprawl, out-of-town shopping, derelict inner cities and building on the green belt. They failed to protect the countryside, and they know it.
Whole areas of open space in urban and rural areas have been devastated in the name of the free market. Let us get the facts right. We did not set the 50 per cent. target for new house building on brown-field sites, or the household projections. It was the Conservatives. We did not force counties such as Berkshire, Kent and Bedfordshire to increase the housing figures in their structure plans. It was the Conservatives. It was not this Government who axed social housing and let homelessness increase to a deplorable level. The Conservatives did that when they were in power. The fact is that poverty and deprivation have increased in the countryside under the Tories, and they did nothing about it in 18 years in government.
What we should be getting from Opposition Members is not a rant about protecting the countryside but an apology to the British people for failing to provide decent housing in rural and urban areas. The Conservatives did not plan ahead. They did not give two hoots about how we can achieve a proper balance between housing need and protecting the countryside.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk should look back at what he and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) were responsible for when they were in government. Why have not the Conservatives put up their top man for the debate? This is their debate. They were trumpeted on Radio 4 this morning as the great defenders of the green belt. Where is the main man from the their team? Where is the shadow Secretary of State?
We had hoped that the Conservatives would tell us their policies, as this is their debate. In fact, their policies change daily. I think that they advocated a two-thirds build on brown-field sites on Radio 4 this morning. They advocated 60 per cent. yesterday. Why not go for broke, and go for 100 per cent? They are in opposition, and they will stop there for many years to come, because they have changed their policy three times in nine months. Quite honestly, they set the incredibly low standard of 50 per cent., but they did not reach that in 18 years in government.

Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister is being uncharacteristically unreasonable in his remarks. Does he applaud the setting up of the all-party future development group, which met last week and was co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)? Does the Minister agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), who said at that meeting that to stop rural sprawl we must stop urban rot? Does the Minister not realise that urban rot is under the control of Labour city councils?

Mr. Caborn: The urban rot is there because of the previous Government's policies, which ran down councils and took all the powers from local authorities. The Opposition are the great defenders not only of the green belt but of local authorities—great transformations have happened in the past nine months.
The problem is that the Opposition have opted to give us the monkey and not the organ grinder to speak in this important debate. The House knows that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is an expert on this subject, as he has said so many times. If this is such a priority for the Opposition, why has he stood aside? Has there been a reshuffle on the Opposition Front Bench that we have missed? No, there has not.
I can tell the House why the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is not speaking today. It is not because he is too busy. Indeed, he is in his place. It is because he has a declared interest. One has only to glance at the Register of Members' Interests. The right hon. Gentleman cannot speak in today's debate because he is a non-executive chairman of the National House Building Council and a non-executive director of Aggregate Industries plc, a building materials and quarrying company. The right hon. Gentleman cannot speak in the debate because he has vested interests. It is disgraceful.

Sir Norman Fowler: I can speak in the debate, and of course I would declare my interests. The National House Building Council is not a building company. The Minister knows perfectly well that it is a standard-setting consumer body. Although I would declare my interests, I could still speak in the debate. However, I am leading the next debate on London Underground and transport.
How can the Minister accuse me of not speaking when the Secretary of State is not even here to listen to the debate? How can the Minister have the total hypocrisy to make such an allegation? Let me refer him to one particular issue. Why did he overrule the independent inspector's report in the west midlands and allow industrial development on 150 acres of green-belt land in my constituency? Why did he not have the courage to announce that decision in the House instead of doing so in the first week of the August recess?

Hon. Members: Answer the question.

Mr. Caborn: As the right hon. Gentleman has made such a long intervention, I hope that he will not be called to speak in the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that his colleagues are being economical with the truth when they suggest that all or most of the new housing will be in the countryside. He knows that the green belt is protected. I am proud to say that previous Labour Governments laid the foundations of the planning system and the countryside protection that we have today.

Sir Norman Fowler: rose—

Mr. Caborn: I am not giving way. The right hon. Gentleman should not be so arrogant. I shall give way in a little while.
Previous Labour Governments created the national parks, extended the green belt and laid the foundations of the planning system that protects the countryside. Those foundations were laid down by the Attlee Government in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947.
Fifty years ago this week, Attlee's Minister of Town and Country Planning, Lewis Silkin, who represented Peckham—a good inner-city constituency

like my own—set out the principles for today's planning system. On this very spot, he said that Labour had a duty to protect the countryside and provide decent housing for rich and poor alike. He said that it falls to us
to secure a proper balance between the competing demands for land, so that all the land of the country is used in the best interests of the whole people".—[Official Report, 29 January 1947; Vol. 432, c. 947.]
We reformed the planning system to protect the countryside, and we shall do the same again on the same principles.

Mr. Soames: The Minister accused my right hon. Friend and my party of scaremongering. Does he understand that a decision by the Secretary of State to overturn a faultless and scrupulous public examination of west Sussex county council's structure plan has caused great anxiety? Furthermore, does he understand that that decision already undermines the green-belt principles?

Mr. Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman listens, I shall explain how we shall address those issues. As I said, we inherited from the previous Administration a system of imposition from the centre. We have been following that system, but we shall alter it. Indeed, we have already started to modernise it.
The Conservatives had 18 years to deal with the weaknesses in the system: we began that process on 15 January. We have produced a consultation document on regional planning guidance. In a few weeks, we shall set out a new approach to household growth and sustainable development.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Caborn: No, I must make progress.
I do not wish to pre-empt the statement that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making on housing and the countryside.

Mr. Sayeed: rose—

Mr. David Ruffley: rose—

Mr. Caborn: I assure the House that we shall take an integrated approach, and we shall put in place new planning guidance and policies that not only protect the countryside, but benefit our towns and cities.
Unlike the previous Government, we are determined to make our towns and cities better places in which to live. That means proper, co-ordinated redevelopment and the release of empty spaces and properties at prices that people can afford.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Ruffley: rose—

Mr. Caborn: I shall not give way. [Interruption.] The Opposition have just asked for the debate to continue for an extra half an hour, and now Conservative Members are trying to intervene. They want to extend the debate, and I am trying to enable them to do that.

Sir Norman Fowler: It is our debate; we decide.

Mr. Caborn: Absolutely.
It is a simple equation: what is good for our towns and cities is good for the countryside. Urban and rural areas are not separate, but interconnected and interdependent. It is no use dealing with the symptoms of urban sprawl: we must address the causes. We intend to do just that, by using a mix of planning guidance and new policy tools. We have no intention of ducking our responsibilities on housing need, and no intention of removing the safeguards on the green belt. We want to strike a better balance.

Mr. Jenkin: I have conducted a survey in my constituency on attitudes towards the green belt. People do not take a Luddite approach: they realise that some green-field sites will need to be developed. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that development on green-field sites should be held back until brown-field sites have been exhausted? It is cheaper and more profitable for developers to develop green-field sites before brown-field sites, which are often more expensive and more problematic. Will the Minister give that undertaking?

Mr. Caborn: All those suggestions and ideas have been considered, and the Deputy Prime Minister will make a statement.

Mr. Yeo: The Government do not know.

Mr. Caborn: It is not because we do not know, Tim. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I thought that I was in Committee. I have seen that much of the hon. Gentleman in Committee. He knows that we are consulting, and will respond to the consultation document that the Conservative Government issued before they left office.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I welcome the assurances that my hon. Friend has just given. Will he ensure that the message reaches councils in the north-east? In Sunderland, we have acres of period listed buildings that are sliding towards dereliction, while all around us local authorities, all of which are Labour-controlled, are busy granting planning permission for green-field sites. It will take intervention from his Department to ensure a change for the better.

Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows as well as I do that we inherited that problem. It was caused by the underfunding of local authorities, which were starved of the cash and the power to intervene.
Three things will help us to achieve our objective. First, we will move away from the old "predict and provide" philosophy for housing. We have already done that for road building. We do not believe that patterns of the past should dictate the future, and we propose a new approach for translating household projections into regional planning guidance.
There has to be much more flexibility at the margins. The Government have every intention of ensuring that the new planning system offers the most sustainable options in meeting local housing needs. We have already stated

how we plan to modernise the planning system to meet those objectives, and we will further elaborate on the matter in our forthcoming statement.
Secondly, we want to introduce a new system in which Whitehall will not impose its figures on local councils. Instead, we should like local authorities to work in partnership with the Government and to take responsibility for assessing their own housing needs. We want to decentralise power, so that local people can have their say in decision making on the provision of land to meet local and regional housing needs.
Thirdly, we want to avoid unnecessary building in the countryside by protecting the green belt and maximising the use of brown-field sites. The previous Government set a target that half of all new house building should be on brown-field sites. This Government, who have been in office for only nine months, are determined to do better than that. The previous Government were in office for 18 years and did not manage to reach their 50 per cent. target, and that was a poor performance.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Ruffley: If all that is true, can the Minister explain why—on 27 July 1997, in an informal briefing to The Sunday Times—the Minister for London and Construction said that he wanted to release for green-field site development areas such as Dorset and Suffolk? Is that true or not?

Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction will be replying to this debate, and can be asked that question directly. However, his statements and mine have been exactly the same.

Mr. Yeo: The Sunday Times was wrong?

Mr. Caborn: I said that my hon. Friend and I have been misquoted, not only in The Sunday Times but—on the Radio 4 interview—in this debate by Opposition Front Benchers. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) believes that his question adds substance to the debate, he is wrong.

Mr. Sheerman: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on those three points? Like me, he probably realises the absolute hypocrisy of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who was part of the gang round the Thatcher Administration, who ruined so much of the English countryside. They failed also to tackle an incentive system to promote building on brown-field sites, whereas this Government will put their hand to achieving one. Is it not true that we will not develop the estimated half million acres of brown-field sites unless we make it more economic to do so?

Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend describes extremely well the previous situation, which epitomises the previous Government's hypocrisy. I remind the House that—in contrast to what Conservative Members have been saying in this debate—88 per cent. of England's population live on only 12 per cent. of the land mass, and that 90 per cent. of—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to dispute those figures, would they please stand up and do so?
I repeat that 88 per cent. of England's population live on 12 per cent. of the land mass, and that 90 per cent. of that population is in urban areas. It is therefore vital that we focus our efforts on using as much brown-field land as possible.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman talks about protecting the countryside, although about 100,000 new homes are projected for Devon, increasing its population over 15 years by between 45 and 47 per cent. Does he not realise that—if we are to protect the south-west's environmental benefits—such an increase is an impossibility? For the benefit not only of the countryside but of people from urban areas who want to come to the countryside, he must realise that it is impossible.

Mr. Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would know that all those factors will be put into the equation. Conservative Members have obviously not listened to what has been said. Fundamental changes have been made in the way in which we deal with household growth. Moreover, local authorities are now allowed to use capital receipts to renovate rundown housing and to concentrate resources on areas of greatest need. Those changes are making a difference.

Mr. David Heath: I welcome much of what the Minister has said over the past five minutes or so about change of policy. Does he agree that the inevitable logic of that is to halt the structure plan process, which is occurring in counties across the country at the moment and which is reaching examinations in public in Somerset. for example, while new policy areas are brought into play, so that structure plans relate to new policy and not old policy?

Mr. Caborn: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite understands the system. [Interruption.] If he knew the system, he would know that it is a rolling programme and that it is reviewed every three to five years. Any mistakes that are made or any changes that take place can be factored in. A projection has been made over 25 years, and any new Government policy will be factored in.
We must improve the flow of information and intelligence at regional and local level on the number of potential brown-field sites. In our forthcoming statement, we shall be looking at how we can more effectively and accurately address the scope for brown-field site development. We shall also be looking at options for introducing new economic instruments and financial incentives to bring more brown-field sites into play.
The Government are committed to protecting the green belt and enhancing the quality of life in both town and country. Part of that means a good-quality environment. It also means decent homes, jobs and access to services. We cannot protect the countryside at the price of a poor environment for people who live in our cities. We are not going to do that. Our approach links urban regeneration with the protection of the countryside; that is bottom up, not top down.
Such an approach is getting overwhelming support. The Countryside Commission and the House-Builders Federation have welcomed what we are doing. This week, even the Council for the Protection of Rural England—

which some Opposition Members have been using as a campaign front—said that our approach to housing and the green belt is to be welcomed. Irrespective of what Conservative Members have been saying, people are starting to understand that we are looking at the bigger picture: how to create more sustainable towns, make better use of brown-field sites, and protect the countryside and the green belt.
It helps no one, least of all those who live in the countryside, to pretend—as Conservative Members have in this debate—that hard choices about how and where people live do not have to be made. We all have responsibility for ensuring that the framework for achieving sustainable development is right, and that people are made aware of the choices that have to be made.
We are committed to protecting the countryside, but the countryside cannot be frozen in a time warp. People in the countryside need homes and jobs. With what we have heard from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the art of lies, damned lies and statistics has sunk to a new low. Let us hope that Back Benchers' speeches are a little more considered.

Mr. Tom King: I have in my hand the paper from the examination in public of the Somerset structure plan, which I attended last week. I commend attendance at such an event to any hon. Member. The experience leaves one in no doubt about the need for improvement and change in the process. I listened for three hours to what the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) might refer to as lies, damned lies and statistics on migration into Somerset.
Somerset faced an allocation of 50,000 extra houses, of which two thirds were not to meet the needs of the household formation of the people of Somerset, but were based on projections of the forward requirements of people—the net difference between those leaving Somerset and those wishing to move in. That convinced me that the present approach cannot be sustained. It is one of over-provision in advance and of over-allocation and licensing of sites. That is why I would be opposed to a green-field tax, which would allow development of green-field sites.
I have had the same responsibility as the Minister for urban policy and trying to regenerate our cities. I carried through the legislation on urban development corporations. All Governments and councils have a continuing responsibility to ensure more urban regeneration and development of brown-field sites.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England has pointed out the failure to address the issue of windfall sites. The number of brown-field sites is not static. They are not simply the relics of the Victorian or later ages. They arise continually with new developments. To ensure urban regeneration and to protect our countryside, we must have a greater concentration on the development of every brown-field site.
I was pleased to hear the Minister confirm what the Secretary of State said in The Times: that, in two or three weeks, there will be a new statement of policy. I understand that it will propose a retreat from the current "predict and provide" policy, and will change the emphasis in the process from top-down to bottom-up.
That calls into question the comments of my Somerset neighbour, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I listened to the chairman, who was conscientiously carrying out the examination in public. I felt it almost impertinent to intrude on a discussion between professionals under specific subject headings in the structure plan. It was very difficult for a lay person to intervene, even though I was trying to speak on behalf of my constituents and with the support of the other Somerset Members.
The chairman of the inquiry, together with the inspector, drew on Government circulars and on advice from the Government office for the south-west, which was represented at the structure plan hearing, about what he was allowed to do. Nobody in Somerset is under any illusions about the process being bottom up. Representatives of adjoining counties were also present at the public examination of the structure plan. Their main interest, it seemed to me, was to make sure that Somerset did not change anything, in case there were implications for them.
The structure is rigid, and needs greater flexibility. I have seen how the process has developed. I have also seen how strong the public reaction has become to announcements of future housing projections. There is a need for greater public consent and involvement in the process. We all know that nobody likes houses being built next door, and that there will always be opposition to any development, but there must be some broader public understanding.
Ministers of all parties have been trapped by a system that rolls on remorselessly. I accept that I have been part of that. I had responsibility for planning as the structure plan system developed. It is very difficult for ordinary people to plug into the process. There is a public gallery at the public examination, but the number of days that the inquiry sits, the hours that it sits and the division of the subject headings do not lend themselves to public involvement and understanding.
That results in a situation such as that which I have experienced. We had a public meeting at North Petherton—a village between Bridgwater and Taunton—protesting against the proposal to built 1,500 houses in what are euphemistically called two new villages. The proposal would effectively join Bridgwater and North Petherton. Together with another proposal to join North Petherton and Taunton, it would result in virtually 10 miles of continuous development in the heart of what is meant to be a rural county.
The county planning officials helpfully explained the background. The people tried to make it clear that the proposals were not acceptable to them. The officials were perfectly happy to explain the proposals, but said that they had all been decided on two years before and determined in the structure plan process. By the time the issue arrived in the sphere of consciousness of the local residents, they had no opportunity to achieve any change.
We are dealing not just with the present proposal for 4.4 million homes, but with a process which, unless altered, will presumably require another 4.4 million for the next 25-year period and another 4.4 million for the 25-year period after that. That will rapidly become

unsustainable. We are aiming for the competing objectives of good housing in our towns and cities and an attractive rural environment.
We must move away from "predict and provide" and towards a shorter time scale. We should phase the processes forward to maximise the impact on brown-field sites and not allow a larger allocation of green-field sites, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) pointed out, are cheaper to develop and will always be developed ahead of brown-field sites.
The article by the Secretary of State contained many points that command widespread support, but he did not deal with approaching the issue on a shorter time scale, with a greater focus on brown-field sites. Rather than indulging in too much ribaldry about targets, I hope that all hon. Members will sign up to two thirds. What is wrong with a target of three quarters? We can at least strive for it, and create pressure for it.
The harbourside development in Bristol and the Bridgwater docks did not involve public money. They were developed because developers saw the opportunity to turn them into attractive urban environments. Urban regeneration need not always be expensive, and it can produce attractive urban living conditions.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: I was appalled by the comments of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). His brazen attacks on Ministers did a disservice to politics and had nothing to do with the subject of the debate. He and his party should be ashamed.
My constituency has the downs to the north and the sea to the south. I asked the Council for the Protection of Rural England where we should build houses. It did not have an answer. There is no answer in my constituency. I should like to address the issue for some colleagues in West Sussex, who have been moaning about the decision. With the exception of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—he is no longer the hon. Member for Crawley—they were not around in 1994–95, when I was leader of Hove borough council and was trying to develop a harbourside site in Hove.
The problem that we had with infrastructure was simple. West Sussex county council, run by the Conservatives, was not interested in discussions about the development of that site. Over the past few years, it has blocked every opportunity to create a development there, time and again.

Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Caplin: Yes, I should like to hear an explanation from a newcomer to the area.

Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—also a newcomer to his seat—for giving way to me, because I could not allow him to get away with the complete nonsense that he was talking. Does he not acknowledge that the reason why Shoreham harbour, most of which is in my consistency, has not been developed is that he and his colleagues have said, "One more lorry? Over my dead body"? They have not allowed any more transport to get to the site, and, without that transport infrastructure, nothing can be built.

Mr. Caplin: That proves who is in charge and who is responsible for the environment. We say that we do not


want any more heavy goods lorries, and the hon. Gentleman says that he does. [HON. MEMBERS: ""Yes, you do."] No, we do not.
I shall now talk about housing and retail superstores, which I notice Conservative Members have not mentioned. When I asked the Council for the Protection of Rural England the other day where we should go to build houses, the first thing to which it referred me was the 1995 document, "Where shall we live?"
That document was generated by the Conservative Government, and mentioned the total of 4.4 million new homes that the Minister has already mentioned. However, it did nothing but ask a question. It had no suggestions about how to deal with the issues. The Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk, did not give any explanation either about how the Tories proposed to deal with them.

Mr. John Gummer: rose

Mr. Caplin: I have only 10 minutes, so it had better be short.

Mr. Gummer: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that in that document and in the material accompanying it we said that we would build at least 60 per cent. of the new homes on brown-field sites, and that I said further that we would hope to build 75 per cent. of them there. The fact that the Government have now stuck to a target of 50 per cent. means that my hon. Friend has had to say that when we are returned in four years' time his target will have to be downgraded, simply because, over the next four years the Government will not have done what we promised we would do, and were doing.

Mr. Caplin: I do not know which document the right hon. Gentleman has been writing or reading, but it is not "Where shall we live?" What he says is not in that document, I am sorry to say. Let me remind him and his hon. Friends that what the Conservative spokesman said earlier is that in 18 years of Conservative Government the figure rose from 38 to 50 per cent. He never accepted until this afternoon, or until the "Today" programme, or wherever he has been appearing, that the target should be higher for house building on brown-field sites. After all that time, the right hon. Gentleman has obviously got mixed up.
In my constituency, the problem is that we have a high level of homelessness, so we need to build new homes, but we cannot build them because we do not have the space. No one has the answer, and the neighbouring Conservative council is trying to block any development ideas.

Mr. Loughton: Nonsense.

Mr. Caplin: Let me tell hon. Members what happened in the past. There was a proposal to dig up green land in Hove and build a superstore. Along came the developers with their ideas, and the local Labour party, of which I was leader in the late 1980s, objected. Even the local Tories objected with us. Then along came a Secretary of State and said, "Of course you can knock down the golf course and build a superstore". That was the Tories' policy, and they cannot deny it, today or ever.
What we have heard this afternoon has been not only hypocrisy but the arrogance that got the Conservatives kicked out on 1 May. It is still there now that they are in opposition, and it is about time they had some humility before the electorate and admitted their gross mistakes over the past 18 years, when they allowed concrete to be generated all over the United Kingdom. They alone were responsible for the developments in that time. Now, as in so many areas of policy, the Labour Government have to come along and clear up the mess.
The other day, I went to a meeting chaired by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), with my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon—

Mr. David Drew: Stroud.

Mr. Caplin: Sorry, Stroud; it is somewhere close by.
I was appalled by the comments made at the meeting. It was an attempt by the Conservative party to use the Council for the Protection of Rural England, a respectable organisation, as a front. I say clearly to the CPRE, "Don't be used by the Conservatives."

Mr. Loughton: What about Lord Rogers?

Mr. Caplin: Lord Rogers was there making a point, and he was perfectly entitled to make it. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) was not there.

Mr. Loughton: I was.

Mr. Caplin: Well if he was, he certainly did not contribute.
The CPRE was being used by the Tories for their own ends. The House must stand up against such action. [Interruption.] I hope that if the hon. Member for South Suffolk sums up later, he makes a better speech than he did at the beginning—and if he does, he may like to comment on what I have said.
There are always tough decisions to take when one is in government, whether central or local. That has always been clear to people. Local authorities are capable of taking decisions in their localities. However, far too often they pass difficult decisions to the Government.
In modernising the planning process, we have a duty, as I hope the Minister who replies will say, to allow local authorities to make decisions and not to pass them up the line. If they pass decisions to the Government, often a bizarre inspector comes in and makes a ridiculous decision.
I shall give the House an example. About two years ago, an appeal was lodged concerning a golf driving range on an area of green land abutting my constituency. I went to the meeting as a councillor, to represent my constituents. Two applications had been made, one for a golf driving range, which would have been a tremendous development, and the other for a car park.
That was while the Tories were in power, and the inspector said, "You can't have a golf driving range, but you can have a car park." Yet today the Tory party is trying to persuade us that it cares for the environment. It is all pretence. The Tories never have cared for the environment, and they have concreted over more of the United Kingdom than the Labour party ever will.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) on his comments. They were well reasoned, and brought a better tone to the debate than that provided by the two Front-Bench speakers. The right hon. Gentleman took a strong stand on the subject even before the general election and opposed some of what the previous Government were doing, so, on that ground alone, he displays a measure of consistency, which is welcome in the debate.
Not many statistics have caused as much recent turmoil as the Conservative Government's adoption of the projection—accepted so far by the new Government—that by 2016, a total of 4.4 million new homes will be needed for newly created households.
I shall deal with those numbers first. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman somewhat sidestepped them. However, there are real doubts about the housing projections, and those doubts must be addressed, because once land is released for development it will be almost impossible to retrieve it from the developers if the numbers turn out to have been wrong.
I shall give one important example. There is undoubtedly a rising number of people living alone in Britain, for reasons such as divorce, and the facts that young people leave home earlier and old people live longer independently. However, the Council for the Protection of Rural England has rightly pointed out that the effect of a related trend, cohabitation, has been seriously underestimated.
During the 1980s, the number of unmarried couples choosing to living together more than doubled, yet the Government predict that over the next 25 years the number will remain virtually static. Given the fact that nine out of 10 people who leave marriages go on to cohabit with someone else, the Government's projection is, to say the least, conservative. It should be re-examined, because such figures make an important difference. If, over the next 25 years, the rate of increase in cohabitation continues along the 1980s line, 1.4 million fewer homes will be required.
Of course, even if the problems with housing predictions are resolved, it is likely that a substantial number of new homes will still be needed. I do not believe that anyone argues against that.
With development on such a scale, it is essential that the right kind of housing is provided: housing that meets the requirements of new householders. I believe that current policy is fatally flawed in that regard. The Environment Select Committee considered the issue last year and said:
developers will naturally wish to build homes which will maximise their profits and … there may therefore exist a dynamic which will effectively inhibit the building of homes which are affordable by those on low incomes.
Conservative Ministers would not accept that point at the time, because they believed that the market, combined with councils requiring developers to include some social housing, would be more than adequate. I believe that they were wrong.
The Institute of Housing, in a submission to the Select Committee, said that it was vital that the figure of 4.4 million should not simply be taken as a green light to

developers, but that proper consideration should be given to where houses should be built, what types of houses are needed, and what local services and businesses should be located around them, to make the house a home in a successful, functioning community. Those powers no longer rest with the local authorities and are not exercised by Government.
On close consideration of the type of household that will develop in the future, it should be obvious that estates of big houses in the most beautiful areas of the countryside may well meet part of the demand for housing and satisfy developers' need for profit, but they will certainly not meet housing need, which is a different issue. That is especially the case for social housing: homes for the elderly and for single young people on low incomes, which will not easily be provided by the housing market.
Rural people are genuinely concerned about the loss of green-field sites around their towns and villages, but most are not NIMBYs. They accept that there will be changes in the character of the countryside, but reject the idea that the answer to housing need is to allow companies to build rows of large detached houses around every village. In Cornwall, there is certainly real support for homes for local people—every village survey has shown that—but not for ever more suburban semis catering to incomers and the rich retired.
The Conservative Members who still represent rural areas have been very agitated recently about development in the countryside, but the figure of 4.4 million was the product of the Conservative Government, who allowed huge rural development, and especially out-of-town shopping centres, often despite local refusals, and even overturning planning inspectors' reports.
Cornwall, including my constituency, suffered many such cases. I say suffered because, in an area in which many town centres are filled with struggling businesses, shoppers are being lured away. That is bad not only for the town centre business but for the countryside, because the more derelict town centres become, the less people want to live in them; so the move out into the countryside is encouraged. The new Government started to create policies to put that right, but, frankly, they shut the stable door long after the horse had bolted, and the existing permissions will be taken up for many years to come.
We must consider whether the fact that many people want to leave urban areas and have a different life style is a sign of the attractions of living in the countryside—despite the hours of commuting to which many people subject themselves—or of the policy in cities and towns going wrong.
Urban areas can and should be places where people want to live, even when they earn a larger salary. Indeed, some of the most expensive and desirable housing in the country—in Kensington or Bath, for example—is inner-urban and developed to an extent that would not be allowed by planners, who would say that it was too dense.
Improving derelict town centres, reducing traffic congestion and crime, and ensuring that schools and other services deliver high standards are steps that are necessary to slow out-migration and stop the creation of urban ghettos with a poor quality of life; yet much that the previous Government did achieved precisely the opposite. Conservative Members would carry more conviction if they acknowledged that they made those mistakes.


The Conservative Front-Bench spokesman missed the opportunity to unite opinion across parties and put real pressure on the Government to make policy changes and call a halt to some of their recent decisions.
Regenerating urban areas is necessary if we are to relieve pressure on green-field sites by using land that has already been built on. The Secretary of State's promise in The Times yesterday to do better than the previous Government's target of 50 per cent. of new houses on brown-field sites is very welcome; but how far will the Government go, and when?

Dr. Ian Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if there is to be development on urban sites, land must be decontaminated, and that the initiative of councils such as Norwich city council in cleaning up the land where once proud factories stood is important and should be taken up more widely? Should not we compliment councils that do that and use biotechnological techniques to clean up land?

Mr. Taylor: I agree; we should. That is another issue which the Select Committee considered last year. I intend to propose one way in which we may release further funding to help local authorities with that process when there is no business that they can charge.
It would be easier to accept Ministers' recent decisions to allow development in the countryside if the Government had their policies in place; but they do not. Figures are being thrown around: not long ago, we heard that the figure of 4.4 million new homes might rise to 5.5 million; then it was back down to 5 million, and now Ministers say that they may drop targets altogether; and the 50 per cent. target for brown-field development might rise to 60 per cent., but, then again, it might not. The uncertainty undermines the attempts of local councillors, pressure groups and Members of Parliament to play their critical part in the development of sound policy.
There is a straightforward package of measures that the Government could adopt to stop unnecessary development in the countryside and revitalise our towns and cities. From what the Minister said today, and from the article by the Secretary of State that I read yesterday, I believe that the Government are heading in that direction, but they are again letting the horse bolt before they close the stable door.
When the Government's target for the proportion of homes on brown-field sites is finally set, we believe that it should be far nearer to the round table on sustainable development's recommendation that three out of four houses should be built on previously developed land. Incidentally, I commend the round table's study to any hon. Member who has not read it, because it not only sets the target but explains how to achieve it.
Development companies should be encouraged to invest in the clean-up of polluted areas, as the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said, so that local people can once again put them to good use. Perhaps the most obvious measure of all, filling empty properties, could release 800,000 homes that are currently boarded up.
Such action cannot stand alone: it must go together with the regeneration of the town centre. Problems facing urban areas must be urgently addressed, as there is no

point in building homes in places where no one wants to live. The Conservative party must consider its record on the problem of dereliction, if it wants to correct it.
We must recognise that building new homes is big business. When areas of land in beautiful countryside are released for development, that is where big business will go. We cannot change the fact that rural locations are attractive to developers, but we can discourage them from cherry-picking such sites—which are now both cheaper to build on and easier to sell—at the expense of urban regeneration.
Building on green-field sites is positively encouraged at present, because no value added tax is charged on new development, while the refurbishment of empty homes and offices carries the full rate. That financial incentive for concreting the countryside makes no sense. A green-field development levy is one way in which we could remove the financial advantages of building on the countryside and discourage unnecessary rural development. The money raised could be used to fund social housing and improvements in urban areas, encouraging people to choose to live in them. Indeed, it could fund the remediation needed to restore derelict land for development or could help to cut VAT on the renovation of old buildings.
Another sensible measure would be the rewriting of planning guidance to create a new development hierarchy. First preference must be given to restoring existing buildings for occupation; then we must develop brown-field sites; and only after that should we allow green-field development. That should be made clear not only through tax and financial incentives but in hard-nosed planning guidance that councils can use, in the knowledge that inspectors will back them up and Ministers will give them the ultimate support that they deserve.

Mr. Drew: Part of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is covered by the sequential principle. The difficulty that I have experienced—as have other hon. Members who have been councillors—is that an agreement is signed with one developer who then goes on to do a deal with a second developer, and that is where things go wrong. The policy must include a suggestion to make the agreement hard and fast, so that developers stick to the principle that has been agreed.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman speaks with knowledge. The influx of councillors into the House at the general election may have done a lot of good, because their perspective is not always to follow what Ministers say is the reality, as against what they find the reality to be when they have to deal with it.
We must make the town a place where people not only come to for work, but want to live in. Many people depart for the country because they are sick of the fear that their homes will be broken into and are afraid that local schools will deliver poor results for their children. Making town centre living more attractive can be done by putting back green spaces, helping inner-city schools meet the highest standards, making public transport a far easier way than the car to get around town, and improving crime prevention.
The previous Government set a budget projection for regeneration which, for 1999–2000, was even lower than for 1998–99—and that figure was £300 million lower


than the figure for 1997–98. They planned a £300 million cut in urban regeneration which would help people to stay in towns. The policy was not working.
The new Government have provided an extra £100 million, but have not restored the funding to where it was for 1997–98. They have looked hard at the work that is needed to invest in the cities and towns of this country to make them more attractive to live in. The biggest single task for the Government is to restore existing buildings and town centres, not to create new ones. Liberal Democrat policies of social investment are well designed to achieve that; Labour's steps in that direction—although welcome—are still too small.
We must put an end to the kind of situation that has outraged the people of West Sussex—about whom we have heard so much. The local authority studied housing need in the area and was backed up by an independent study. However, the Deputy Prime Minister overrode the decision and ordered the council to build 20,000 more homes than local people, responsible to their community, had shown were needed.
It has been pointed out in the debate time and again that the Government are falling into the trap of a long-term national target based on dubious assumptions. To say that a change later will solve the problem of the structure plans is simply not true. We will have to put up with years in which developers buy land that they earmark for development, but which perhaps they will not develop. However, the local authority is entirely unable to remove the developer because it could not possibly afford the compensation that would be involved if the Government realised that their policy was wrong.
As the debate has demonstrated, the issues surrounding urban development over the next 25 years are far from resolved. The Government's intentions are unclear and are causing a great deal of concern both to residents of rural areas and to those trying to find a decent place to live in Britain's cities.
The Secretary of State's article in The Times yesterday, entitled:
The Green Belt is safe with us
is a case in point. While saying that he wanted to keep the presumption against development in the green belt as strong as ever, he nevertheless saw "no need" to intervene in the plan to build 10,000 homes on green belt land around Stevenage, or again in Newcastle. We cannot judge that against the new Government policy, which we are told is on the way, because we do not know what the new policy is.
A complete moratorium on permitting major new developments in the countryside or green belt should be put in place until the Government have resolved their policy, which is, we are told, weeks or months away. Indeed, the Minister kept referring to a policy paper that the House has not seen. If the Government are serious about that—and I believe that they are—and if they want to protect green spaces around our towns and cities, the go-ahead for permissions on previously undeveloped land in the countryside and on the green belt, which their new policies suggest would not be given, should not be given now in the weeks running up to the publication of the new policy. That is a simple thing for the Government to announce, and it would take the tension out of the debate.

If they wanted to take the pin out of the hand grenade that the Conservatives believe they have on this issue, that would be the way to do it.
My county of Cornwall fought and won the argument against a proposed 10,000 increase in house building, which came from the Government. The previous Government argued against the county, but the county won. It persuaded the inspectors who looked at the debate that the migration figures did not add up. We showed that the figures on which the present Government are still basing their policy certainly did not apply in Cornwall. I have no reason to believe that they apply anywhere else. The figures are not right. Ministers know it, the Opposition know it—so why allow these major developments to go ahead now?

Mr. Jim Cousins: The speech by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) was an important contribution to the debate because, in effect, he turned his back on decades of policies by the previous Government, which favoured planning free-for-alls. We are now struggling with the consequences of that. The fast buck has finally rebounded on the executive barn conversion.
We should remember that green-belt policies were devised by Labour politicians to protect the interests of Labour cities. The green belt was designed to preserve the city. That is the purpose of the green belt—to enable development and to create incentives for development in the cities themselves. The Conservative party should appreciate that during their 18 years in government, the opposite occurred. A tax and development system bled the in-town in favour of the out-of-town. It is with the consequences of that we are now grappling. Sprawl and rot go side by side, hand in pocket.
I took some comfort from what my hon. Friend the Minister said, because he indicated an important change in the emphasis of policy. However, it is important that we are clear that that change of emphasis has to be definite and quick because there is now too little time left to us to reverse the consequences of the planning policies of the Conservative Government. It is now essential that we tax green-field development and spend it on the inner city. The proceeds of that green-field tax must go to the inner city. Unless we do that, we cannot grapple with the consequences of the planning decisions that have already been made.
When I put that issue quite directly to the hon. Member for South Suffolk, his policy, I am afraid, was St. Augustine's policy:
Give me chastity … hut not yet.
The hon. Gentleman would not accept the case for the tax on speculative development in the green fields. Without that, we cannot make progress with the policy.
My city of Newcastle is a strong case in point. It is time to make planning strong and to impose tough choices on developers and speculators. I hope that the new Government will make it clear that no houses will be built on the area now allowed for development in the green belt in the city of Newcastle unless and until the taxes on that development are in place, unless the public transport corridors are in place with the finance committed and until polices about which we can be convinced lead towards the restoration of the inner city are in place and, beyond any mistake, seen to be working.
Newcastle's historic centre is in a state of decay. There are hundreds of thousands of square feet of 19th-century commercial property—property that is capable of conversion into precisely the sort of housing that young single people would wish to live in. But there is a price tag for that and unless we make the economic incentives strong enough, it simply will not happen. In many ways, Newcastle is a city divided, rather than united. It has examples within in it of some of the highest quality of city living anywhere in Britain, and some of the worst.
Unless those problems are looked at together, we shall not make sense of this. Some inner-city neighbourhoods in Newcastle are popular, and people wish to live in them. In other inner-city neighbourhoods, which are running down, owners cannot find buyers, landlords cannot find tenants and the city council is engaged in a policy of clearing its own property. In the past five years, 1,000 social houses in the council sector have been pulled down.
Shortly, the Government are to take us forward into new health, education and welfare policies. We must see the links between those changes in policy and in the planning policies that we are discussing. Newcastle has 8,000 empty properties—4,000 in the inner-city west end of Newcastle alone, part of which I represent. Figures announced yesterday show that for results Newcastle is in the bottom six of local education authorities. There is a link between those two things. Those things can be tackled. They can be changed—indeed reversed—but powerful policies across the board are needed to do so. Please let us see the links between different types of policy.
Newcastle is a great party city, but some parts of my constituency have the highest crime rates in England and some of the highest insurance costs, which go with them. Those two things are linked. Those problems can and must be tackled. More than one in four households in Newcastle are workless. The Government propose to tackle that issue, and when they do so, and are seen to do so, we shall have viable inner-city neighbourhoods.
Twenty thousand people in the city of Newcastle receive incapacity benefit. Newcastle is fourth from the bottom of the league for incidence of cancer. Death rates for young men in Newcastle are increasing because of dangerous life styles, the impact of drink and drugs and the lack of secure prospects. Those critically affect the welfare of certain neighbourhoods. If we address that problem—if we tackle sprawl and its economic underpinning, the rot of our social and human infrastructure—we can make cities viable, and if we do so we shall never need the proposed building on the Newcastle green belt.
However, while money is made too easily by sprawl, rot will continue to spread. I hope that my Government will take it upon themselves to have planning policies in the bold colours of both red and green. Those colours should go together if we are to allay people's fears. The answer to these planning problems is to bring new heart, hope and life back into the inner city.
I hope that the Government will say clearly, in the debate and in the statements that are to follow it, that they will lift from the brow of Labour's inner cities the crown of unnecessary sprawl, and that they will lift urban neighbourhoods, which need and deserve support, from their cross of growing greyness. Housing policy can play

an important part in Labour's policies of welfare reform and environmental protection, but unless the links between those policies are made we shall continue the policy of sprawl. I urge the Government to defend the green belt, not in the interests of the countryside—although that may well be necessary—but in the interests of the cities.

Mr. John Gummer: I heard much in the speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) with which I would agree, but I find it difficult to understand why it is a satisfactory solution to the problems to tax, rather than stop, development on green-field sites. I should much prefer it if we started by asking ourselves whether development should take place.
I do not blame the Deputy Prime Minister for not being in the Chamber today; the speech of the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning would have been as painful for him to hear as it was for many hon. Members. However, he was not here for another reason: as far as we can tell, the decisions with which we profoundly disagree were taken by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, and I am sorry that the latter is not now in the Chamber to listen to what I hope will be an explanation of why those decisions were so arbitrary and so harmful.
It would be quite possible for us to carry the whole debate by blaming one another—going back over the past 20 years, looking forward and thinking about this, that and the other—but the fact is that, during the past four or five years, no one would have given permission for 12,000 houses outside Stevenage, joining Stevenage with its nearest town. This is a new kind of policy. Perhaps the Government intend to change that policy now that they have discovered that it is incredibly unpopular, but it is a new kind of policy.
Similarly, the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), who spoke so much sense, mentioned that Cornwall had been able to prove to an inspector that the figures that had been handed down were wrong, and the Government upheld the inspector. In the case of West Sussex, that did not happen. The council, on an all-party basis, proved to the inspector that the figures were far too great. The Government turned the inspector down and, as their supporters said, betrayed the Labour party locally.
Therefore, I do not think that it is unfair to say that the case that the Opposition are making is not about yesterday or about the Town and Country Planning Acts or numbers of houses, but is based on the actual decisions taken by the Government in the nine months in which they have been in power. Even if the Labour party hates everything that the previous Government did, it must also be worried—if it is being fair in any way—by the decisions that the Labour Government have taken.
I found the article by the Deputy Prime Minister in The Times yesterday very difficult in one sense. I yield to no one in the praise that I have given the Deputy Prime Minister for his support of the environment internationally. He has been kind enough to reciprocate, but his policy has in fact been a continuance of a policy and a bipartisan policy and I am very pleased about it, so in a sense I am sorry that I must criticise the Deputy Prime Minister on this issue.
However, it is no good writing articles in The Times in which one pledges to defend the green belt when one has just agreed to a large series of buildings in the green belt round Newcastle, when, in the delicate way in which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central put it, that is quite difficult to justify, given the number of empty houses that there are in the middle of that green belt.
I believe that the Labour party has failed to understand how the market works. Developers will not develop the inner cities if they have the chance to develop outside; that is the fact. Previously we did not have a target of 50 per cent; that was the figure that we were reaching from 38 per cent. I said clearly that we would do 60 per cent., but when the round table on sustainable development said that it felt that we could do 75 per cent. and produced the figures, I said that if that stood up I would go for 75 per cent. It is on the record that that is what the Conservative Government said.
I am happy for Labour Members to say that we did not achieve that, but it does not help their case because, until the article in The Times, they said that they would not even try. They did not have a policy of 60 or 75 per cent. [Interruption.] The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning is constantly saying that he is misquoted. To be misquoted once may be considered an accident; to be misquoted twice and one begins to wonder whether he was ashamed of what he said and wished he had not said it.
Again and again, the Government have said that they accepted what they referred to as the previous Government's target of 50 per cent., and it is no good their now pretending that they have not. The article in The Times makes precisely that point. The Deputy Prime Minister now says that the target is 50 per cent., but that they hope that they will do better. Therefore, there has been a change of tack on that.
If the private developer is to do the job that we want him to do, there must not be an easy option. Governments will not find good places in inner cities to build houses by having great lists of brown-field sites, changing every day, as the Council for the Protection of Rural England rightly said that they should. Governments will not achieve the building in that way. The people who find such sites will be the people who will make profits out of them. It must be made profitable for them to do so, and that will not be achieved by allowing profits to be made more easily in another area.
That is why it is important to set a high target and not to argue about the figures. I wish that I could have suggested figures below 4.4 million. It is in the Government's interests to have a lower figure. I accepted the figure of 4.4 million because, having looked at all the opportunities for reducing it, I could not truthfully suggest that a lower figure would be likely. But that does not affect the argument, because we will have more homes than we would wish to accommodate. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the majority of them at least are built in the inner cities.
We have two problems—inner-city deprivation and dereliction, and the need for more homes than we would like to build. Those two problems can solve each other. It is perverse that so far the Government have not tried to solve those two problems but have exacerbated them by

agreeing to build in the green belt, which the Conservative Government would not have done and did not do. The Government have changed the policy.
But the situation is worse than that. The Minister for London and Construction gave it away. He will talk as if protecting the green belt and the countryside is a selfish activity by people who are lucky enough to benefit from it. That is what he has said and his articles have shown it again and again. [Interruption.] I am careful not to accuse him of the things that he plainly has not said. That is why he put the finger on Dorset and Suffolk.
Some Labour Members are even more adamant than that. One day, I spoke with the leader of Stroud district council on the telephone and I asked him why he wanted to build in the beautiful Painswick valley—the only access to Stroud which is so far unspoilt. He said that everybody else has had to have houses, so he did not see why they should not have some houses as well. Despite living in an area of outstanding natural beauty, they felt they should have the houses as well.

Dr. Howard Stoate: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I am about to sit down.
If we want sustainable development, we do not want a Government who change the policy; we want a Government who force people to build in the town.

Ms Christine Russell: I have never before listened to so much phoney outrage and pious untruths as I have heard in the past hour and a half. Where have Conservative Members been for the past 18 years?
Since May 1980, I have chaired a local planning committee. It was the build-anything-anywhere planning policies of the previous Conservative Government which led to acres of green land going under a sea of concrete. It was the Conservative Government's policies which led to the destruction and the desecration of our city centres and to the dependency on the motor car. It was the Conservative Government's policies which impoverished our countryside.
In Chester, with the support of local people, Labour councillors consistently opposed out-of-town retail parks and leisure complexes. We turned them down only to find, months later, that the Government-appointed inspector carrying out Conservative Government planning policies allowed the appeal and there was absolutely nothing that we or the local people could do about it.
It was not only the green-field sites on the edge of the city that were affected. We have spent 18 years and a lot of public money—so far, fingers crossed, successfully—defending the Sealand basin, a valuable green space in the heart of the historic city of Chester which has been nibbled away round the edges. It is not only the green fields on the outskirts of our cities that need planning protection; we must also tighten planning protection for the valuable green spaces in our city centres.
I was born and brought up in the countryside, and the previous Government's disastrous policies affected the rural areas, too. The enforced sale of council houses and the complete unwillingness of the Conservative Government to invest in social housing have led to most


Cheshire villages nowadays being little more than dormitories for better-off commuters working in Manchester or Merseyside. Gone are the village schools and shops and the sense of community.
The household growth timebomb has been known about for a long time. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) knew about it. He spoke about it several years ago at a conference that I attended. But the Conservative Government did nothing about it. A roof over our heads is a basic human right and I am sure that most experts would agree that, whatever the figure of potential new households—be it 1 million, 2 million, 3 million or 4 million—probably 40 or 50 per cent. of those people will need social housing.
One of the Conservative Government's worst legacies is the 5,500 people on the housing waiting list in the fairly affluent city of Chester. That is hardly a good testament to their Government.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Russell: No.
If we do not grasp the nettle, poorer families will continue not to have a roof over their heads because house prices will spiral.
The new Government have made a good start. We have released £800 million of capital receipts, but in my city and in most other cities the state of the housing stock is so appalling that most of that money will have to be spent on repairing and renovating existing stock, not on creating new units.
After 18 years on a planning committee experience, I firmly believe that the system is too rigid. We need more flexibility and I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of a use-class order for social housing. At the moment, we have no mechanism for controlling the type and tenure of housing.
I was pleased to hear that the Liberal Democrats support the idea of reviewing the tax position. If concrete is poured over green fields, the development is VAT free, whereas if one converts an old building for residential use, the full tax rate is payable. Given that this Government's hallmark is fairness in taxation, I hope that Ministers will at least be prepared to consider removing that anomaly.
Local authorities have been criticised in a number of quarters. Chester local authority has carried out a brown-field audit and has innovative plans to regenerate the inner city—to build on the old gasworks and put houses on the old canal basin. There is enormous potential, as there is in many of our cities, to re-utilise the floors above shops for housing. They may not be suitable for families, but they are certainly suitable for young people, particularly students. They are ideal for single-person households.
I have read all the Government's documents and believe that we face enormous challenges. We cannot deny that the number of new households will grow. How are we to accommodate them? As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central asked, how will we create safer, more vibrant city centres where people want to live? How will we support sustainable, living communities in our countryside? How will we protect our wonderful built and natural environments?
We cannot walk away from those challenges, and we cannot repeat the mistakes that the Conservative Government made in the past 18 years. The key to meeting those challenges is improving and modernising the planning system. I am delighted that the Government will take an holistic approach—the system has been crying out for it for years—by bringing together economic development, transport, housing and the environment. The Labour party laid the foundations for modern planning 50 years ago and has always believed in planning. Some 10 years ago, I spoke at a planning conference when a previous Conservative Minister of State said that he did not believe in planning at all. He is still a Member of this House, although he is rarely seen here now.
Fifty years later, I have every confidence that the new Government will create a new co-ordinated planning system, which will improve the quality of life for everyone in the 21st century.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: When I heard the Minister of State introduce the debate, I realised immediately that policy in this area was on the move, but was unclear about where it was moving to. There were occasional protestations of good intentions, but, by and large, I had the impression that there was no policy at the moment.
I read what the Deputy Prime Minister said in the newspaper yesterday, and realised that most previous statements on that subject were now inoperative. We are told that, in a few weeks' time, some further announcements and guidance will be issued. Meanwhile, I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that, unfortunately, in the first nine months of the Government's period in office, some fairly startling decisions have been taken.
The reaction to the dramatic decision to allow large-scale development on green belt land near Stevenage and Newcastle, which was criticised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), has driven the Government to realise that the cavalier way in which they have been proceeding so far cannot be sustained, and that they must reconsider the policy.
The Minister of State tried to disguise his difficulty of having no policy to outline today in response to this debate by making an extremely belligerent attack on the previous Government's record. That will not impress Labour party supporters in rural and urban areas who support the principles of conserving the green belt and the countryside. Demand for change comes from all sides, against a background where most people know what we should aim for.
Obviously, we should begin by trying to regenerate inner-city areas. If the Government can build on the excellent record of the last Government, going way back into the 1980s with the setting up of public-private sector partnerships, urban development corporations—much of the regeneration resisted at the time by Labour councillors in many cities—good luck to them. Newcastle upon Tyne, like Nottingham and many other cities, bears all the signs of successful urban regeneration in the past.
The principle of building on brown-field sites underlay the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment. If that can be built on, all well and good, but belligerence is uncalled for.

Mr. Caborn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way just once, but, like everybody else, my speaking time is limited.

Mr. Caborn: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the two documents that we issued on 15 January, "Modernising the Planning", which is a policy statement, and "The Future of Regional Planning Guidance", which is a consultation paper? We are trying genuinely to deal with the points that Conservative Members have raised and bring them into the public domain. I presume that he has read them, and will be contributing to the debate.

Mr. Clarke: I found the documents bland and uninformative. They contrasted somewhat with the Government's decisions, whether they were taken by the Secretary of State or the Minister of State. I am waiting for a better document to be issued, in the light of the hints dropped in yesterday's article and today's debate.
The Government should build on the city regeneration which we started, and get rid of the remaining dereliction. Naturally, there will be some development in suburban and rural areas, because some is required. We expect some household generation in rural communities, because new families there must be provided for. We even expect the development of some light industrial employment in the countryside to help the rural economy. However, we all strive to get the balance right. It is avoiding the point to embark on extraordinary attacks on what happened in the past 18 years.
A successful balance has been achieved in my constituency. A third of my constituents live in essentially suburban areas of the city of Nottingham, while the rest live in a rural area, scattered over the countryside of southern Nottinghamshire. The local planning authority provided land for development and, with the healthier housing market, a lot of development is going on. Attractive new housing is being built at Gamston on the edge of the existing conurbation, without prices going out of control. Some of the bigger villages were expanded, with a certain amount of barn conversion. There was some out-of-town shopping development, but I am glad to say that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal was Secretary of State, he brought an end to unrestrained development of that kind.
What has happened so far has resulted in a reasonably satisfactory balance. With some development permitted, the green belt has been rigorously defended throughout the past 18 years. We have had no serious setback on green belt policy.

Mr. Caborn: That is not true.

Mr. Clarke: It is in my constituency.
The threat that we now face, in the light of current policy, results from the Government's recent decisions, alongside the planning approach hitherto adopted. The present policy cannot be sustained when one considers what "predict and provide" threatens to inflict on us all.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) criticised the basis of predictions. We have all been challenging those predictions. In this short speech, I shall not repeat the arguments set out in an extremely good article in The Times yesterday by Nick Nuttall. Not all the points he made were good, but many of them required answers.
I detect from what the Minister said that he will give up the top-down process of seeking to forecast until 2016, which produced the unlikely result of 4.4 million households, and allow much more local discretion for local provision over shorter time scales. What has happened locally so far has a tremendous top-down content. At county level, the trouble is that far too many predictions assume that one can extrapolate from the developments and movements of population of the past 20 years precisely what will happen for the next 20 years. That is not necessarily the case.
The Nottinghamshire structure plan demands provision for 69,250 dwellings in the county by 2011. The expected increase of population, itself a little challenging, is only 50,000. It is expected that the formation of smaller and smaller households will continue—I agree with the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell—on a scale that looks increasingly incredible. Worse, the distribution within the plan assumes that growth will continue where it has in the past.
The plan has acceded to pressure that growth should be permitted in the most prosperous and attractive parts of the county, not those crying out for development, such as the north of the county where the coalfield closed down. Of the total, 14,400 dwellings are supposed to be provided in Rushcliffe, compared with places that need development, such as Mansfield, which is to provide 8,000, or Ashfield, with 8,500. Nottingham, which has a much bigger population, is to provide only 8,000 new dwellings.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, the developers whom I want to develop parts of my constituency find it attractive to be given such an invitation to move into the green-field sites of Nottinghamshire, where it is easier to sell properties for more money without the difficulties of urban regeneration and development of brown-field sites in north Nottinghamshire or in Nottingham.
If my local planning authority is to be asked to provide 14,400 new dwellings, all the talk of targets for brown-field site development is ridiculous. It is difficult to find a brown-field site in my constituency. One closed colliery has been earmarked for industrial development. Other than that, development can go only into the countryside. That will have a disastrous effect on the character of the neighbourhood.
If the policy is to change, if we are to abandon the predictions and go for a shorter time scale, may we have an assurance that where structure plans are in place or local plan inquiries are forthcoming, the whole thing can be revisited? Can not only the national but the local targets and their distribution be regarded as up for sensible debate again?
I hope that the Government will also live up to their commitment to put alongside their approach to planning their approach to transport and to the roads programme.

Mr. Caborn: We are.

Mr. Clarke: It is not happening in my part of the world.
The reason why "predict and provide" must be abandoned for housing allocations is that it appears to have been abandoned for the road programme. To give another example from my constituency, the large-scale provision that the planning authority in my borough is supposed to make is supposed to be made along the trunk road corridor of the A52, which leads from Nottingham to Grantham. Unfortunately, all the projected improvements along there have been postponed, and, so far as I can see, postponed indefinitely.
I recently had a meeting with Baroness Hayman. The prospects of the A52 improvements coming back into the programme are next to nil. I myself urged other schemes on her, to save them from the axe—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Barbara Follett: I welcome the chance to talk again about Stevenage, this time not about our prowess at football but about the land to the west of the A1(M). Many people do not like that land being referred to as Stevenage west.
While I welcome the long overdue evidence of environmental concern from Conservative Members, I fear that it owes more to perceived political advantage than to any real desire to protect the countryside. Conservative Members can shake their heads for all they are worth; they look like my granddaughter's Noddy doll. Their howls of protest would be more convincing if they were not criticising the very policies they formulated and followed in government less than nine months ago.
I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) eloquent and clear, but it was also clearly hypocritical.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That term has been used on several occasions, not only by the hon. Lady but by other hon. Members. It is not a description which I want used in the Chamber. We should use more temperate language.

Barbara Follett: Thank you for correcting me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. He was perhaps a little bit economical with the verityé. Only 14 months ago, it was he, as Secretary of State for the Environment, who said:
even accommodating more housing in our towns and cities, as we … must"—
I agree—
means that some development on green-field sites will still be needed. That is unavoidable."—[Official Report, 25 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 46.]

Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Lady point out the difference between a green-field site and a green belt site?

I know of no circumstance in which I have ever suggested that we should allow green belt land to be used in that way. That is the basis on which I made those remarks, and on which I attacked the Stevenage decision. I was therefore being neither hypocritical nor unclear about the truth.

Barbara Follett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that semantic slither.
"Unavoidable" was exactly the word used by Hertfordshire county council when, after months and months of trying and public inquiry, it failed to find the space for the final 10,000 houses of the 65,000 that it had been set to find by the previous Government. It had managed to put 55,000 houses on brown-field sites. It had stacked them into the towns, but it could do no more. It had to start considering other areas, unless it was to build, as was suggested, on one of the few parks in Stevenage and one of the even fewer parks in Watford.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the hon. Lady believe that that has happened because existing policy is being followed? If the policy is about to change and the Government announce the changes that they have suggested, does she think that the permission given in respect of the green belt area should be reversed?

Barbara Follett: Hertfordshire county council knew that there was a correlation between overcrowding and crime and between overcrowding and violence. It knew, as did the former Secretary of State, that some building on green-field sites was unavoidable, so it chose the least worst and most sustainable option: 1,500 acres to the west of the A1(M) near Stevenage. The land is in the constituency of the right hon., but recent, Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Before the general election, he was the Member for St. Albans.
The site has several advantages. It is close to public transport and to Stevenage, whose economy will benefit from the extra demand. Despite the confident but deeply inaccurate interventions of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), it will not merge with Hitchin. To prevent such a merger—believe me, the citizens of Stevenage do not want it either—Hertfordshire county council released 5,000 extra acres into the green belt to compensate for the 1,500 that it had removed. I remind hon. Members that the amount of green belt land in Britain has doubled since 1979—something for which the Conservatives can take credit.
That move will ensure that the green belt—which, I remind Opposition Members, was introduced by a Labour Government—will fulfil its original purpose of preventing the coalescence of towns.

Mr. John Randall: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Barbara Follett: No, I have given way fairly already.
Although I welcome the "predict and provide" philosophy outlined by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I should point out that Hertfordshire county council is already following that policy in Stevenage west. Contrary to the scaremongering by Opposition Members—especially the chronically misinformed Member for Mid-Sussex—the council is to


build only 5,000 houses on the site by 2011. If 5,000 more houses are needed after that, they will be built, but the council is hopeful that they will not be needed.
I commend Hertfordshire county council and Stevenage borough council for their courage in tackling the difficult problem of marrying two demands: first, the demand for more housing and more social housing; and secondly, the demand to preserve the countryside of England. They have done the impossible, and they are to be congratulated.

6 pm

Sir Paul Beresford: At the beginning of her speech, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) more than insinuated that the fear in constituencies about the potential loss of the green belt was being stoked by the Conservative party. In my constituency, that is completely untrue—we do not need to stoke such fears.
My constituency is just south of the M25, and close to London; the A3, A24 and A25 run through it, and it has good public transport links. The population are acutely aware of any shifts and changes that they fear will threaten their green belt, because it is precious to them. Over the past few months, the confusion and the actions of the Government have brought that concern to the fore in the minds of most of my constituents, and it is clear from the local press and from my mailbag that they are desperately concerned. Let me touch on some of those actions—only a few, as I have but a few minutes.
There have been some constructive speeches from Labour Members, and especially constructive speeches from Conservative Members—in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). We have mentioned that the big four giveaways with which the press are running are the ones that have caused greatest concern. Mole Valley is part of Surrey and is therefore right next door to West Sussex, and the big jump in the figures, which is one of the big four giveaways, has frightened the people in my area. I hope that the Minister will give us considerable reassurance on that point.
A variety of articles, either apparently stimulated by comments from Ministers or supposedly written by Ministers, have added to the confusion. There have been indications that PPG2 and PPG6, both of which were tightened up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, are being eased back. That can be seen in the press and from comments by builders and supermarket chains.
Mention was made of the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill and of the fact that £800 million was being released. In fact, not a single penny from capital receipts, but only borrowing capacity, is being released; but that, seen in combination with regional development agencies, is an item of concern to people in my area.
Many of them use the A3 and, as they approach Tibbet's corner in London, those with longer memories recognise and remember that those were once green-field sites, until the Greater London council and the London county council got hold of them. There are now

15,000 dwellings on those former green-field sites—hence the desperate concern. The compulsory purchase order powers of the regional development agencies are frightening, especially when combined with the changes in the capital rules affecting local authorities, which may want to duplicate the build-out policy operated under the GLC and the Labour party in London.
The review has been mentioned and waved at us in the Chamber. I have read the review documents—twice—and they do not help to calm anyone's fears. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said that he had read them and found them bland, but he was being polite; they are so bland and so broad that anyone with half a degree of cynicism would recognise that they could be perceived as giving an opportunity to change the planning system surreptitiously in such a way as to threaten the green belt. That is how the review is seen by my constituents, and we need reassurance.
There have been a few red herrings: the one that amuses me is that of putting on a tax—not taking a tax off one area, but putting on another tax. That might suit those who wish to build on green-belt and green-field sites in my patch, because they may be able afford to buy there and pay the tax, but it certainly will not help those who cannot afford to do that. If there are to be tax changes, it should be take off, not put on.
I am being especially succinct and looking at only one aspect of this issue—the reason for the fears. The speech by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning did not help—it was belligerent and abusive. We want to know that the green belt is secure. We also want to know that inner-city regeneration is to be implemented. Sneers and criticisms were made about recent Conservative Governments and the way in which they have changed inner-city areas. I implore those Ministers who now have responsibility for that area to go back and look at the many successes. Those successes built on a learning curve, and it would do Ministers a lot of good to go and look at them.
Ministers should start with the development corporations and, for example, London docklands, where the GLC failed, and where an innovative approach changed the whole system and brought housing with a variety of tenures to a dilapidated, appalling area in the centre of London. The system progressed as local authorities joined in and recognised that it was moving forward positively.
The result has been dramatic changes in places such as Manchester, Liverpool, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich and so on. Change is progressive: I hope that Ministers can learn that, at the end of the day, we must turn brown-field sites in our inner cities back into positive places that are attractive to live in. That is success, and part of it is keeping our green belt sacrosanct.

Mr. Brian White: Before entering the House, I was chair of the Local Government Association's planning committee and, as such, I was one of the people who challenged the previous Government to justify the methodology behind the figures for household projections announced by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I represent a partly rural constituency and I regret that what should have been a serious debate on a serious topic has been trivialised by some hon. Members who spoke earlier.
I was somewhat perplexed when examining the record of the previous Secretary of State, who said that he believed that laissez-faire planning was the right way to proceed; that local planning authorities were an obstacle to growth; and that he wanted there to be a massive increase in out-of-town shopping centres, because that was the right way to regenerate the economy. That record is at odds with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) when introducing the debate. It is also strange that a record number of sites of special scientific interest disappeared under the Conservative Government. I make one exception in my criticism, in that I recognise that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal did make significant changes in some of the planning policy guidance notes that he issued. PPG6 was a major improvement, as was PPG13.
As I have said, I challenge the methodology involved in the household projections. Other hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), mentioned the need to change the top-down approach to a bottom-up approach. The hon. Gentleman also pointed out that different social factors had not been taken into account in the figure of 4.4 million. Our policy on regional development agencies, and the changes in environmental and social policy—especially social changes relating to crime and our welfare-to-work initiative—will have a major impact on where people want to live, and on the regeneration of our inner cities.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that, after he had taken into account all the issues raised by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, the lowest figure that he could recommend was 4.4 million. We should also not forget that every calculation in the past has been an underestimate rather than an overestimate.
We cannot separate today's debate from the debate about regeneration, and we must recognise that there will be different solutions for different parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) spoke about the needs of inner cities, but rural areas also have needs. Some farming constituents to whom I spoke recently pointed out that the villages were no longer rural, by which they meant that they had become dormitory villages from which people commuted into the local town.
We need to ask what the role of villages will be in the next century—and, indeed, what the role of towns will be. We should have a rational debate about that. The projection relating to increased car use stimulated a public debate about how our transport system should be changed. Similarly, the 4.4 million projection has at least generated a serious public discussion about ways of dealing with housing stock.
We are not just talking about 4.4 million homes. The projection refers to an increase in the number of elderly single women, and also to the substantial number of single young men. Those, apparently, are the groups which most need extra housing—although there is no suggestion that they should be put together. They require housing other than the standard housing that has been provided over the past 10 or 15 years. The executive-type housing that is most profitable will not be right for the people about whom we are talking.

Mr. Drew: We are now dealing with either a negligible increase or no increase in population size. That makes a

significant difference to the type of property required, and to where it needs to be. Migration forces are the biggest single influence.

Mr. White: I entirely agree.
A tremendous amount can be done for cities and towns. The regeneration of our run-down inner cities is a great challenge, which many local authorities have already taken up. I should point out to Ministers that the previous Government's Treasury rules hindered many developments. I am thinking here of development corporations. The clawbacks that are imposed if local authorities develop land hamper growth and regeneration.
The House Builders Federation has said:
The social and economic consequences of not building enough houses are being ignored by many commentators. Many people will not be able to afford their own home, or will live in unacceptably crowded conditions, if we fail to build enough homes in the right places.
That is another key point which is often missed. We are not just talking about building the right number of houses; we are talking about quality. One of the mistakes that we made in the 1960s was to build tower blocks and other kinds of massive housing far too quickly. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past 18 years, but it is also important that we do not repeat the mistakes of the 1960s. We should build quality into our inner cities—and, as I said, many local authorities are doing that.
The current planning policies are causing houses and jobs to be planned in different areas, thus exacerbating transport problems and increasing growth on the edge of towns. Other factors, such as housing subsidies, have an impact on the quality of build, and such support needs to be directed toward brown-field sites. We should also recognise that brown-field sites are not all the same. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) mentioned the problem of contaminated land. We must deal with that problem if we are to achieve the target of 75 or 80 per cent. on brown-field sites.
Other hon. Members raised the key issue of finance. While it remains cheaper to build on green-field sites, developers will concentrate on such sites. Brown-field sites must be made economically attractive. Various solutions have been suggested, from taxation to strengthening the planning powers of local authorities; but there are other possibilities. In the 1940s, when a Labour Government introduced planning powers, they also created new towns, which have proved a successful way of diverting pressures from other towns and accommodating growth. The role of new towns should not be forgotten. By carefully selecting the green-field sites that can accommodate growth, we can relieve much of the pressure on other sites. I commend what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done in Stevenage, which will help many parts of the south-east.
We have heard a good deal of rhetoric, and a good many cheap political attacks, but there is a real debate to be had. There are no easy solutions, and we must make serious choices about how we are to live in the 21st century. The real debate is about what type of towns we should have in that century—what the quality of urban living should be, and what our life style should be. If we tackle those issues seriously, I suspect that there will be a great deal of consensus across the parties, but cheap political attacks such as we have heard today do everyone


a disservice. I hope that, following today's debate and following the Government's announcement of changes in planning and household projection policy in three or four weeks' time, we can engage in a sensible debate and start to create the necessary consensus.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I support the motion. I hope to show why I reject the Government amendment, and to expose the way in which the Government have failed to protect the countryside, especially the green belt.
My constituents can judge the Labour party only by its actions. I invite the House to consider its decisions in national and, more particularly, local government, and I hope to expose its intrusive policy with regard to the green belt. In the Vale of York, there is a proposal for an incinerator site in Rufforth, on a green-belt site within a mile of three centres of population—Rufforth, Knapton and the city of York. A park-and-ride scheme is also proposed at Rawcliffe. The proposal ignores residents' views, despite a hugely expensive consultation exercise. There are rumours of a new town of possibly 25,000 homes between Thirsk and Ripon. I ask the Government to consider the infrastructure that would be required to accommodate those new houses. Access to all facilities would be necessary—to roads, schools, and hospitals, and especially to water and sewerage.
I was elected to represent the Vale of York by a sizeable majority on a platform that supported filling in brown-field sites before we touch green-field or green-belt sites. I urge the Government to examine options for accommodating a projected 4.4 million new households in England by 2016. I query the basis for such projections. The household projection process is at best an inexact science. Those targets must remain subject to continuous review, with the aim of achieving the best possible fit between projected housing demand and land allocation.
In meeting housing demand, priority must be given to affordable housing in villages and rural locations for those engaged in less well-paid rural employment. There is a specific lack of planning mechanisms to safeguard land for affordable homes. The Government must redress that gap.
There is a singular lack of clear commitment to green-belt policy, as evidenced by decisions to allow local authorities to proceed with major green-belt releases around Newcastle and Stevenage. There should be stronger justification for altering green-belt boundaries. At the very least, the Government's policy shows that Stevenage and Newcastle have more in common than a football draw: they are both victims of that negative Government policy.
My main concern in the Vale of York is that planning decisions by the City of York council have involved various irregularities. I refer to the incinerator that it is proposed to build on a green-belt site in Rufforth. The proposal is currently subject to review by the local government ombudsman. A highly irregular procedure was followed, which does not show the Labour party in its best light. The City of York planning committee overturned North Yorkshire county council's local development plan, by which the City of York remains

bound. In addition, the City of York rejected its own local development guidelines and its chief planning officer's recommendations.
What assurances will be given tonight to those living in the Vale of York, that the green belt will be protected from Labour party policy in national or local government? I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he will give my constituents some reassurance that the green belt will be preserved.

Mr. Graham Stringer: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. The future of our cities is closely linked to our treatment of the green belt, green-field sites and the countryside. One of the characteristics of the United Kingdom is its urban life. It has a higher density of cities than any other country in Europe. Since the second world war, Governments of all political colours have been cavalier in their attitude to our cities as assets.
It was extraordinary to hear the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) attack the Government in his speech. He forgot about the damage done to cities by his Government in the late 1980s. He forgot about the out-of-town shopping centres, the latest of which will open outside Manchester in Dumplington later this year and put people in my constituency out of work. He forgot about the removal of billions of pounds' worth of rates and revenue support grant. In short, he forgot about the attack on the inner cities.
It would be better if hon. Members on both sides remembered that and considered the other side of the equation. Having been involved in leading a city council for many years, I know that not everything that city councils have done in terms of urban regeneration has been perfect.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning said that the Government would get rid of the "predict and provide" model. That is a mathematical system which is consistent in its own terms, but there is great uncertainty about whether it relates to anything in the real world. If that model is to be rejected, I urge my hon. Friend to examine in detail what happens in cities. People who have developed the model say that it works less well as the amount of detail increases.
I refer to my experience in helping to redevelop Hulme, with the support of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and the hon. Members for South Suffolk and for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Those hon. Members helped and, I believe, learnt from trying to redevelop Hulme. When we looked at Hulme, we found the mistakes of the Labour Government in the 1960s, a Conservative Government immediately afterwards, a Conservative council and a Labour council that had provided industrially built housing.
The most striking feature, which helps us to understand what has been happening in the cities, was that that area had previously had about 180 dwellings per acre. The industrially built monstrosities hastily provided by parties of both political persuasions represented fewer than 12 dwellings per acre. It is not surprising that all the community facilities that glue a city together—the churches, the public houses, the transport system—started to fall apart. There were simply not enough people, and the situation was designed to encourage crime.
When we considered what we wanted to develop instead, we found that under a Labour-controlled council, many of the policies coming out of our engineers department and planning department were not helpful in designing the sort of houses that people wanted to live in. We had to turn round a series of policies to ensure that we achieved housing densities of 30 to 40 dwellings per acre. That is not extraordinary in the history of cities elsewhere.
Engineers want turning circles at the end of roads and extra parking spaces. In one of the poorest parts of the city of Manchester, the planning department suggested one and a half to two parking spaces per dwelling. The actual car ownership in that area was less than one in three. It is not surprising in those circumstances that low-density development results.
We turned that round. Hulme, in the constituency of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), is now an attractive place for people to buy houses or to live in social housing. Further development is still needed, but it is working.
If we return to the numbers game, when one looks at the figures and the number of brown sites, it is difficult to know what densities people are talking about. I suspect that if we consider the supply of land available in the cities and multiply it by densities of 30 or 40 dwellings per acre—in city centres, greatly increased densities are possible—the balance between what can be provided in urban areas and in the countryside switches to a much higher figure than exists at present.
Building up those densities not only protects the countryside for the benefit of all of us; it helps to make the city work again. It helps to make transport work. If 1,000 dwellings were created in warehouses and office blocks in the city centre, over a year, 4 million car journeys would be saved, assuming that people commuted on average 10 miles into the city centre. That is an incredible saving. It is a matter not of better transport, but of no transport, because people are near their place of work. Because of the way in which cities have developed, some of the most attractive sites next to the city centre have become some of the least desirable. We need to improve that and get the density right, so that public transport works and makes a profit—or balances the books, depending on who owns the transport system.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the figures. Development is bound to be more difficult in the city. It has a bad image, but that is being improved by cities such as Newcastle, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. We are all trying to improve its image, but it will never be an even playing field when it is easier to develop out of town. Certainly until they work properly again, cities need grants—whether from taxation on green-field sites, via the council process or special development grants—to make developers realise how they can make a profit and provide houses within the city in which people want to live.
The time it takes for planning applications to go through came up several times in the debate. I have been involved in a number of major planning applications, some of which were connected with housing. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have said that the planning process must speed

up. We have to get the balance between the country and the city right, but we must also ensure that people are given decisions quickly, so that there is certainty.
We all agree, across the House, on the problems that face our country: unemployment, poverty, crime, drugs, the environment, pollution, education and how to make it better. Cities are often seen as a problem. I believe that cities are the centre of creativity. Much of the intellectual capital and the gross domestic product of this country have been developed in cities. We shall all be the poorer if we do not make them work. We have an opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said, to combine dealing with the problems of the city with the protection of the countryside, to make our cities work better. We shall all benefit from that.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sure that the House listened with interest to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and his case study of what he did in a particular part of the city while leader of the council. As I have two children who study at what I call "Boddington's university" in Manchester, I have more than a passing interest in that city being safe and successful.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) not only on introducing the debate but on the manner in which he did so. He performed a singular service to the House and to the country. Not only did he articulate the concerns in the country about the real threat to the countryside but he chose Opposition time in which to do so. He also exposed the great uncertainty in Government policy in this critical area.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has noticed, but the terms of the Prime Minister's motion reflect almost exactly the terms of early-day motion 681. That says quite a lot about the Government's response to the debate. They know that the concerns on these matters are not confined simply to the Opposition Benches but are reflected on the Government Benches as well, among the newly elected hon. Members who are temporarily representing Conservative parts of the country, who found it necessary to respond to these concerns.
I am sorry that the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning is not in his place to listen to the rest of the debate. No doubt he will listen to the wind-up speeches. He does not seem to understand why his speech went down so badly with Opposition Members and why it failed to ignite with Labour Members. He is a decent chap, but he did not perform at all well. If I may, I shall take just one point.
The Minister invited us all to be reassured that the Government plan to safeguard the green belt, and reassured us that concerns expressed by Opposition Members are wholly without foundation. We are not at all unreasonable in finding those reassurances unacceptable.
Two examples were given by my right hon. and hon. Friends, to which the Minister made no reply whatever. It is a material consideration that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has had a decision overturned, so that green-belt land will now be concreted over in Sutton Coldfield. The Minister had the opportunity to explain how that complied with his new policy, and failed signally to answer it.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) challenged the Minister on the decision to allow a further 12,000 houses in Sussex, the Minister failed to respond to that as well. I remind the Minister for London and Construction, who is present, that a joint statement from the leaders representing all three parties on West Sussex county council said:
This is the starkest possible illustration that Government has no intention of trying to provide a greater share of the 4 million new homes said to be required by 2016 on brown-field sites rather than on green fields in the countryside.
We do not understand, nor do we accept, the Government's assurances, because they are at variance with their practice hitherto. If they are saying, in the light of the meeting last week and the early-day motion, that they have changed their policy, so be it.
In my constituency, development pressures have long been apparent in the northern part of Aldershot. It is now a matter of great concern to us. Before the boundary changes at the last election, the Aldershot constituency included a large rural hinterland, which is now part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the shadow Chief Whip. The area lies beyond the metropolitan green belt west of London and thus was targeted for growth early on. The temptation for developers to leapfrog the green belt was far too great, so the whole of the Blackwater valley has become part of the fast-growing sub-region under the south-east plan of 1970.
Although the growth policy is now defunct, development pressure continues, and may well intensify. Already, much of the area has been suburbanised, with peripheral expansion and the replacement of perfectly good old houses with dense infill. That has led to a serious loss of character and identity. The infrastructure is simply not there to accommodate such extensive infill, the pushing of houses into what were formerly the gardens of larger houses, and the bolting on of estates. These are villages. They have village facilities and village roads. They do not have the benefit of the infrastructure to cope.
Our remaining green-field sites are under threat of options from developers, who promote them as so-called omission sites at local planning inquiries. An inquiry is under way at present with developers queuing up to stake their claim in the planning lottery. One of the reasons for that flurry is the stranglehold of housing land availability. Planning policy guidance note 3, of March 1992, effectively said that local authorities should provide a forward plan of five years of housing stock. That may sound reasonable, but it has effectively become the developers' gravy train.
The requirement for a continuous supply of land for housing usually refers to green-field sites. Sites within settlement boundaries are not normally counted towards the total, which is calculated on a five-year basis. Sometimes, sites fail to come forward as planned and a shortfall occurs. As a result, developers can appeal and argue for their site to be released so that the five-year supply is maintained. Local planning authorities cannot plan properly because of the constant fear of appeals to the Secretary of State in the event of a land supply shortfall.
To some extent, PPGI has changed that. The February 1997 guidance provided for local authorities to
allocate the maximum amount of housing to previously-developed sites within existing larger urban areas, which have access to a range of transport and other facilities, while protecting open space, playing fields and green spaces in cities and towns.
All political parties welcome that policy.
I shall conclude, as I know that others wish to participate in the debate. I believe that the Conservative Opposition have touched a raw nerve in the Government, exposing the inconsistency of their policy. However, I hope that the Government will learn from that and live up to the assurances that they have sought to give the House today about protecting the green belt. I hope that they will be serious about urban regeneration, which affects not only the inner cities to which the hon. Member Blackley referred, but towns such as Aldershot, which could do with some regeneration. The urban regeneration programme which is under way will be helpful to such towns. I share the view that it is not a matter of country versus town; the town and the country have a common interest in safeguarding the green belt and realising the regeneration of our towns.

Dr. Howard Stoate: One of the advantages of being called to speak late in the debate is that one has the chance to listen to the full range of arguments. However, the disadvantage is that many of the points that I wished to make have already been raised.
We have heard various arguments from Opposition Members about the number of houses that will be required in the next 20 years and where they should be built and many sound reasons why they should not be built in their constituencies. We have heard hard-luck stories about why certain planning decisions have been wrong. However, Opposition Members have made no attempt to find a solution.
We need a significant increase in the number of houses in Britain in the next 20 years. No hon. Member has seriously challenged that assumption. We have heard nothing but moans and groans from Opposition Members about why there should be no new development in their constituencies. They have made no attempt to solve the problem.
We need more houses because people need decent homes. If we do not build more houses, there will be house inflation, rent increases and a shortage of rented accommodation leading to homelessness, social division and poverty. That cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Sooner or later, someone has to face up to it. At least the Government have the guts to make a stand on the issue.
My constituency of Dartford in Kent Thameside has been grappling with the problem for some time and is close to reaching a solution. The planning framework for the Thames Gateway envisages up to 30,000 new homes in Kent Thameside in the next 30 years. At least 22,500, or 75 per cent. of them, will be built in my constituency. Between 80 and 90 per cent. of the new housing will be built on brown-field sites. That will help to protect the green belt elsewhere in Kent and the south-east. Kent Thameside offers a solution in terms of finding space for new housing.
The new housing envisaged will serve all the needs of the community. It will include executive housing, affordable housing and low-energy housing. However, development on brown-field sites has abnormal costs. Local planning experts inform me that between £150,000 and £200,000 per acre is required to regenerate brown-field sites into a usable state. The additional costs inevitably affect the economics of development. For example, developers are currently being asked to provide land for new school buildings. To date, Dartford has been the most successful Kent authority in respect of extracting contributions towards building new schools.
Developers are also being asked to provide 20 per cent. of social housing in new housing areas, and we are working on that. Kent cannot possibly fund all the necessary transport infrastructure, so developers are also being asked to help fund a comprehensive public transport network.
There are added planning complications from developing constrained urban sites. There was a need to tackle the barriers to development on brown-field sites in Kent Thameside. That will remove considerable pressure from other green-belt sites in Kent. It will also enable the Government to make progress towards economic development, integrated transport and sustainable development in the Thames Gateway.
We have a vision of how a brown-field site can be returned to productive use. The Kent Thameside partnership has brought together three local authorities—Dartford, Gravesham and Kent county council—the university of Greenwich and the private developer Whitecliff, which is an amalgamation of the land holdings of Blue Circle Industries and the finance and development expertise of Lend Lease, an Australian company. That has led to the creation of one of Europe's largest shopping centres—Bluewater—in a disused quarry. So far, it has attracted £1 billion in inward investment and there will be 7,000 new jobs when it opens next year. It has all been achieved without Government funding.
In order for any development to be sustainable, it must have a proper infrastructure. It can succeed only if it is an attractive place to live, if it is accompanied by employment opportunities, if it has proper leisure facilities and, above all, if it has environmentally sound and workable public transport links.
As I have pointed out, regeneration is not a cheap option. The cost of regenerating brown-field sites significantly reduces the planning gain that can be obtained by selling land to the private sector. However, the private sector cannot do everything, given the abnormal costs of developing brown-field sites and the significant infrastructure costs. Similarly, local authorities are not in a position to pick up the bill. Increases in population do not show until the next 10-year census, thus having no effect on standard spending assessments or rate support grants, while demands for services increase relentlessly. Business rates are passed over to central Government. Even a boost to local jobs through the creation of new industries ends up costing local authorities much more than they ever reap in return.
We can deliver sustainable development in Kent Thameside almost entirely on brown-field sites, thus easing pressure on the green belt, but it is neither cheap nor fully self-funding. However, it offers the opportunity

to bring together large parts of Government policy to act as a magnet for inward investment and an engine room for the economy of the south-east. We need the opportunity to become truly a blueprint for the nation.

Mrs. Theresa May: I have been an hon. Member for only nine months, but I was appalled by the Minister's speech. He completely failed to address the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and by the motion. He failed to address the genuine concerns of members of the public.
People are worried. Ministers can talk about having a modernised, integrated, sustainable, co-ordinated, co-operative regional development partnership, but that cuts no ice with people when, week after week, the Secretary of State takes decisions to concrete over vast sections of the green belt. It is not Conservative words that are causing concern among people who are worried about the countryside; it is Labour actions and the Government's decisions to destroy the green belt in Sussex, the midlands, Hertfordshire or Newcastle.
The debate is important as it enables us to raise those concerns. It is clear from the Minister's speech that he does not understand what the problem is or people's genuine worries about the decisions that the Government are taking.
People are worried about the future of the green belt, green wedges, open spaces and the countryside generally. They are also interested in the future of our towns and cities. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) was absolutely ŕight to refer to the need for a balance between the countryside and the towns and cities. Perhaps he should look closely at the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others. We seek a balance between regenerating and renewing our towns and cities, and ensuring that planning decisions such as those taken by the Secretary of State do not destroy our countryside and our green belt.
The Minister must acknowledge the importance of Government decisions—not just those on whether a housing development or an industrial development is allowed on green-belt land. If the Government are to achieve the regeneration of towns and cities, they will have to consider carefully decisions on out-of-town stores, for example. They must put PPG6 into practice and not allow the development of out-of-town stores that would destroy the retail heart of many of our towns and cities. That is essential if we are to achieve the balance of which a number of Labour Members and many Opposition Members have spoken.
There are many exciting ideas for regenerating our towns and cities. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of discussing with members of Maidenhead chamber of commerce their exciting ideas for preserving, developing and regenerating the town centre to include not just retail but some residential development, so as to bring people back into the heart of the town. Such schemes would take the pressure off green-belt development to some extent. People in my constituency are concerned that the Government are not preserving and protecting the green belt, and they are not comforted by the statements of our Liberal Democrat-controlled local council.
I hope that, when he replies to the debate, the Minister for London and Construction will address people's concerns about the Government's actions, and that he will recognise the need to balance life in our towns and cities with life in our countryside. He should be committed to encouraging the renewal of our town centres, and accept the need to ensure that other planning decisions, such as those on out-of-town stores, are taken in the light of that commitment.
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning did not recognise people's fears about the Government's plans for the green belt and for our countryside. The Minister for London and Construction should give us comfort, and should reassure us that the Government intend to protect the green belt, because we cannot take comfort from any of the Secretary of State's actions or from the Minister's statement this afternoon.

Mr. David Drew: I shall keep my remarks short and to the point. The debate has proved that this particular dog will not bark, and it certainly will not bite. The Conservative Government own many of the problems that are coming home to roost. It is important that we understand who is to blame.
However, I want to begin on a positive note. I welcome the many good speeches that have been made in the debate. It is easy for some of us who have been involved in these matters for a long time to score cheap party political points, but what is required is a serious, national debate. We have added to that debate today. I had feared that we would undo much of the good work done at the all-party meeting last week, but we have not. Many hon. Members made excellent points that I hope will be listened to not just in the House but in the wider world, and I hope that their constituents will take note of what they are trying to do.
I have consistently argued that the housing numbers are excessive. Others argue that 4.4 million houses will be insufficient. They allege that we are failing to provide enough social housing. Those of us who have attended a public inquiry or examination in public will know that the housing numbers can be used to defend the plans being submitted. They can also be used against a council if sufficient allocation is not made. I have been accused by developers of failing to provide sufficient allocation. Whether we like it or not, under the present system the numbers can be crucial.
I welcome a return to a plan-led, bottom-up, localised system. Local authorities should decide their own destiny, and should take responsibility. I am sure that all hon. Members have case histories of local planning decisions that were so sensitive that the council was willing to pass them to the Secretary of State. That is just as unacceptable as a central diktat overruling a council when the local feeling is that the council was right.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has tweaked my tail. Having done his research over the telephone, he knows a lot about Stroud. One day, I shall invite him to Stroud. In my part of the world, we do not have green belt: we have areas of

outstanding natural beauty. However, the same logic applies. In protecting some land, we make other parts of the countryside more vulnerable.

Mr. Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best ways for the Government to protect land is to address the problem of empty properties? In Holland, they achieve a 2.3 per cent. vacancy rate, whereas our rate is 4 per cent. If we were to achieve 2.3 per cent., we would create 340,000 homes without the need to build any of them.

Mr. Drew: The hon. Gentleman's point is well made. There is not one solution, but a series of different ideas, all of which must be tried. We owe that to our present and future constituents. We must not shut the door and pretend that people cannot come in. We cannot ignore the fact that migration is the major driving force. We must see whether societal changes can help us over this difficulty.
I support a plan-led, bottom-up system. Local communities can determine their own destiny, and can participate carefully and thoroughly in the planning process. One of the disappointments of the past 18 years was that the planning system was abused and came into disrepute. Many people feel passionately about these issues, because the system has let them down. We know that the best way to pack a hall is to talk about development issues. The difficulty is that we must move beyond the protest movement to come up with solutions. That is beginning to happen, and a national debate has now started.
I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) to make a point about the brown-land solution, which we all want. An increase in the level of brown-land development to 50 per cent., let alone to 60 or 75 per cent., can be achieved only if it is recognised that in parts of the country it is difficult to find any brown land. That is the difference between the rhetoric and the reality. It is easy to say that there will be no development in areas that have no brown land, but that is as unfair as saying all development should be dumped on the cities. There should be a balance.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said so eloquently, we must revitalise the cities if we are to protect the countryside. We can redevelop our cities by using creative thinking and by applying the sequential principle of encouraging developers who use green-field sites also to redevelop brown land. I hope that Ministers will consider that type of idea.
The House has had a good debate—which we can now take onwards and upwards.

Mr. Christopher Chope: In this debate, Conservative Members have struck a chord with the people. That has been demonstrated by the great interest shown in the debate by my right hon. and hon. Friends, by the quality of their speeches and by the fact that the original 7 o'clock end of the debate has been extended by half an hour to allow fuller debate on an all-important subject. I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friends


the Members for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for putting pressure most effectively on the Government.
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber to hear the Opposition's reply to the debate—is not a good listener. Today, he was certainly a bad-mood bear. He started at rock bottom and he never recovered. He refused to answer any of the challenges or questions, and he even refused to answer a most reasonable question, asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—whether he thought that it was a good idea to establish an all-party group to discuss those all-important issues.
In making a ludicrous personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the Minister showed only his ignorance about the general and regulatory role of the National House Building Council.
The Minister said on many occasions that he did not want to anticipate the Deputy Prime Minister's forthcoming announcement. Could it perhaps be that he did not want to contradict the forthcoming announcement, as he has done in the past? Was his bad humour perhaps a cover for his confusion?
The debate has therefore achieved the Opposition's purpose of bringing the Government to account on a critical policy sphere affecting the quality of life of so many of our citizens. Opposition Members have been alarmed by Ministers' statements about the green belt and by some of the decisions on appeal—particularly those in which Ministers have overruled planning inspectors to allow green-belt development or have refused to intervene to prevent it.
In a debate on the subject on 12 November 1997, the Minister said:
I should make clear the fact that the target for reusing previously developed land remains at 50 per cent., the same as the previous Government's official target. Although the Green Paper floated a figure of 60 per cent as an aspirational target, and the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development even suggested 75 per cent., we have not changed the target.
He went on to say:
I can set targets, but if targets are not realistic, it is stupid for Governments to set them. I have set a target of 50 per cent"—[Official Report, 12 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 867–68.]
In this debate, Opposition Members have harried and put pressure on the Government. Although we have not succeeded in bringing the Deputy Prime Minister to the House to reply to the debate, we received a signed article from him in Monday's edition of The Times. The article repeatedly states that the green belt is safe with the Government. However, it also becomes clear in the article that the Deputy Prime Minister is overruling his own Minister's statement of 12 November 1997 to the House. We do not congratulate and thank the Deputy Prime Minister for much, but we congratulate and thank him for that.
We saw that the Deputy Prime Minister's article in The Times began with the amazing statement that
When we say as a Labour Government that we won't run away from difficult decisions we mean it.

That came as a bit of a surprise to those of us who had read the revelations in the previous Friday's Local Government Chronicle about the Government's plans for local government.
In a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Local Government and Housing apparently said,
We need to be particularly careful in how we present the issues in the consultation papers … We should avoid boxing ourselves in too soon … but we will need to make it clear that more extreme options are ruled out.
The Minister went on to say that her plans
may be presented as conflicting with expectations created by the announcement of the review, coverage in the local government press and the approach we have taken so far. There is a danger that … our new partnership approach to local government which we have proclaimed loudly to considerable acclaim from our own Backbenchers and local government would quickly break down".
The Government's review of local government finance is all about running away from difficult decisions—on capping and council tax, and on business rates and central control. Why should we believe that the Government are not running away from the difficult decisions on the issue of household growth and development in the countryside?
In the article to which so many hon. Members have referred in this debate, the Deputy Prime Minister went on to say that
People need decent homes to live in and they want to choose where to live … The number of households is growing faster than the number of people … If we fail to provide for household growth we risk making homes unaffordable and increasing homelessness.
No right-thinking person would disagree with any of those platitudes. However, the key soundbite, which was developed by the spin doctors and led to a headline article in The Times was about moving
away from the old predict and provide philosophy in housing just as we have done in road building".
I was sorry that it seemed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was almost taken in by the Deputy Prime Minister's statements. I submit to the House that, on close analysis, the Deputy Prime Minister was not really moving away from a "predict and provide" policy so much as engaging in transferring blame to the people. Later in the article, he said that he wants to involve the people and local authorities in discussing the issues of new household formation. However, unlike the Government's approach to traffic—in which they talk about addressing the causes of traffic growth—there is nothing in anything that the Deputy Prime Minister or any other Minister has said that addresses the issue of the causes of new household formation.
More serious is the humbug of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that the Government want a system that is
less rigid, more democratic and more sustainable".
That expression of good intention is totally at odds with the Government's decision to overrule the conclusion of the regional panel of experts that West Sussex county council should accommodate 37,900 more homes by 2011. The Secretary of State decided that the county must provide an additional one third. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal so succinctly said, that was an amazing intervention by a Minister. The House has not heard any justification of that decision or any


explanation of how the decision will fit in with the Government's stated policy. We wish to hear those explanations in the Minister's reply.
If the Deputy Prime Minister means by "less rigid" more unpredictable, we can anticipate where it will get us, because the extraordinary decision in West Sussex was unpredictable. However, I am at a loss to comprehend how he thinks that the decision was "more democratic" or "more sustainable". What could be more democratic than a clear policy argued out at a public inquiry with an independent panel sitting in judgment? What could be more sustainable than a policy that recognises not only the need for more housing but the environmental impact of having too much housing? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said, serious people go to panel inquiries, contribute to the debate and examine the evidence—as he did in the Somerset inquiry. It is beyond belief that, after all that process, the Government should come along and completely tear up the inquiry's decision.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater made a number of excellent points. I hope that Ministers will respond to his suggestion that there should be a shorter time frame for green-field allocations, perhaps coupled with a longer time frame for brown-field site developments. The current system is causing green-field allocations to be gobbled up more quickly by developers than the more difficult brown-field sites. His suggestion certainly merits further consideration.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal drew attention to all the contradictions in Government policy and reminded us of the outstanding way in which he developed a truly sustainable policy. It is a matter of great regret that the Government have not been following that same policy.
Judging from the terms of the Government's amendment, there seems to be confusion among Ministers about the difference between green belt and green field. We saw during exchanges in the debate that Ministers do not seem to understand that there is a difference. The amendment refers to the Government's
continued commitment to protecting the countryside, including green belts".
What about the green belt that is not open countryside? Under Governments of both parties, it was a cardinal principle that the green belt should be protected in its own right because it is a break in continuous development. Issues relating to it are separate from those relating to the countryside. As soon as the Government say, "We shall not protect the green belt which is not countryside", people will despoil the land, and use it for storage and car parks. Over time, people will say that the land is such an eyesore that it must be built on. Previous Conservative Governments had a consistent policy to oppose such development.

Mr. Gummer: Did my hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) said that, to distinguish between the green belt and green-field sites was a mere scruple, a matter of no importance? Has not our defence of the green belt been fundamental? I remember only one occasion on which I gave permission—in very specific circumstances, due to jobs—for the green belt. The green field is different, and there

are different arguments about it. Was not the hon. Lady entirely wrong to allow her own constituency to be raped in such a way?

Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If he had still been Secretary of State for the Environment, he would not have allowed the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) to get away with it. It is sad that her Government refused to intervene to protect the people of Hertfordshire. The Labour party was not the only party to be involved in the decision; the Liberal Democrats were right up to their necks in it as well.
It has become apparent during the debate that Ministers have been listening too much to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). It is clear from his comments that he has captured the ear of the Government. He says that there is no space for any more development in Hove and that Hove needs to develop more in rural West Sussex. The attitude that he demonstrated in his remarks is indicative of the way in which the Government are pandering to anti-countryside feeling. The consequences of that for more enlightened Government Members, such as the hon. Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), and for the inner cities and urban areas are dire. I hope that Ministers will not listen to the hon. Member for Hove again. The way in which he attacked his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was incredible.
The debate has highlighted once again the yawning gap between what Ministers say now and what they said in the past; between the new green rhetoric and the actuality; and between the picture that the Government paint with phrases such as
The green belt is safe with us
and the reality of their actions on the ground, where they override their own inspector to allow green-belt development. Is it any wonder that speculators are driving around our countryside seeking out landowners and paying them handsomely for options to buy land on which they expect to be able to obtain planning permission for development, as my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said?
Both the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning and the Minister for London and Construction have spoken publicly against 60 per cent. of development or more going on brown land. The Minister for London and Construction described that proposal, which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, as a recipe for disaster. The Minister spoke out against the creation of residential densities exceeding those during the 1960s and 1970s, and said that there is a serious mismatch between where the brown-field sites are and where the housing demand is. That is totally compatible with the Government's decision on land in the green belt outside Newcastle.
In replying to the debate, the junior Minister must say whether he still stands by his opinion that putting 60 per cent. of new development on brown-field sites is a recipe for disaster. Will he explain and justify the decisions concerning West Sussex and the green belt outside Newcastle, and the amazing decision to overrule the inspector in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield? Will the Government admit the errors of their ways, and make the green belt sacrosanct and development in open countryside development of last resort?

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I very much welcome this debate. [Laughter.] I do, indeed. The subject of household requirements and how they are to be met is hugely serious and deserves the fullest and most careful consideration, which the Government are giving it. It is not a matter for scaremongering or sloganising, which is what we have heard from too many—although not all—Conservative Members. We are talking about people's need for homes, how we should protect the countryside and regenerate our towns and cities. We are discussing how we can achieve more sustainable development and improve the quality of people's homes and surroundings—whether they live in towns and cities or in the country. We are talking about how we can reconcile people's freedom of choice with responsibility for the environment.

Mr. Richard Page: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: Many speeches in the debate have recognised the complexity of many of the issues. There were several thoughtful speeches. I would single out those of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and of my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who grappled with the considerable difficulties in reconciling often conflicting objectives in achieving a valid planning policy. This is a serious matter and deserves serious consideration.
Other Opposition Members questioned the validity of the projections of 4.4 million households. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Members for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) all did so. I remind them that those projections were published by the previous Government and have been supported by two independent inquiries. Most previous projections have been underestimates. Evidence available to us—already seven years into the 25-year time frame—shows that there is no rational basis for amending the estimates.
Some hon. Members highlighted the importance of social housing provision and the real need for more effective regeneration policies in the inner cities. My hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and for City of Chester (Ms Russell) all focused on their areas and the need for more housing and for regeneration—and quite right too. There was a focus on the need for more devolution of decision making, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) and for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) of their care for achieving properly integrated and well-planned developments that will meet the needs of their areas.
We heard a certain amount of scaremongering about the green belt from Conservative Members, such as the hon. Members for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) and for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I was disappointed that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) also veered into that territory. He made the rather extraordinary claim that he had never sacrificed the green belt when in office. In a moment, we shall see the veracity of that claim.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister suggested that the estimate of 4.4 million homes was backed by independent reports and that all previous figures were underestimates. When rural planning is rationed and there is never as much building as developers would like, would not almost any figure be self-fulfilling? Builders will take up whatever opportunities they are given. The price may be affected, but the quantity of building will not.

Mr. Raynsford: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation considered that in detail in its inquiry into planning for housing in the early 1990s, shortly after the projections were made. It concluded that there was no real basis for challenging the figures. Those who have looked at the issue most carefully do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Page: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: The Government are committed to maximising the opportunities for reusing brown-field sites. There are many things that we can and will do. We shall try to ensure a more level playing field for building on brown-field or green-field sites. That is why we have said that we want to open up a discussion on whether economic instruments can play a part in that. Secondly, we must encourage local authorities—

Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a tradition of the House that the Minister who initially answers Opposition day debates attends for the wind-up? It is fully five minutes since the Minister started his speech. The Opposition wind-up started at 7 pm. There is no sign of the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning. That is particularly irritating, because he has refused to see Conservative Members on issues such as the development of considerable amounts of green-belt land in Hertfordshire to the west of Stevenage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Who is on the Government Front Bench at the end of a debate is not a matter for me. It is entirely a matter for the Government.

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend has a commitment in Amsterdam, as part of our European presidency. He would have been here had the debate not been extended at the request of the Opposition.

Mr. Page: rose—

Mr. Quentin Davies: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: The Government are committed to encouraging local authorities and private developers to use more imagination in the development of brown-field sites. The report from the round table on sustainable development—

Mr. Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Minister who introduced the debate had an appointment abroad before the end of the debate—an extraordinary state of affairs demonstrating extraordinary priorities—would it not at least have been


reasonable for him to have presented his apologies when he spoke, rather than leaving his hon. Friend to pick up the pieces at the end?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already explained that that is not a matter for me. We are only taking more time out of this debate and the next.

Mr. Raynsford: I shall now have difficulty in responding as fully as I should like. Conservative Members will have to accept that I shall not be able to take interventions from them because of their abuse of the procedures of the House to score points.
The Government must encourage local authorities and private developers to be more imaginative in using brown-field sites. The report from the round table on sustainable development suggested that many authorities could do more to assess the suitability of brown-field sites in their areas and make better use of them. They should explore the scope for raising densities or reducing car parking provision in appropriate cases, particularly near town centres.
We also believe that the regional planning conferences and local authorities may be able to play a bigger part in achieving the best use of brown-field sites. The previous Government were the great centralisers. We want to decentralise decision-making whenever possible. We have already announced our proposals to extend the scope of regional planning guidance. Greater regional involvement in handling the household figures is an attractive option which we are seriously considering. There must also be greater regional input on how much recycling is feasible.
However much brown-field development we achieve, some new homes will need to be built in the countryside. Even with a target of 75 per cent. of new homes on brown-field sites, as Conservative Members have sometimes argued, there would still be—

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) tried to intervene three times on the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning. He has tried to intervene four times now, but has not been allowed to do so. What is the point of having a debate if Ministers will not reply to reasonable questions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whether Ministers give way is entirely a matter for them.

Mr. Raynsford: As Conservative Members well know, I am only too willing to give way when there are no time pressures. When confronted with deliberate abuses of the procedures of the House by hon. Members who have raised spurious points of order, it is right that I should try to complete my speech and do justice to those—unlike the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)—who have been in the Chamber throughout the debate.
Even if we opted for a target of 75 per cent. of new homes on brown-field sites, as Conservative Members have sometimes argued, there would still be around 1 million new homes to be built in the countryside.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Raynsford: This is an abuse.

Mr. Nicholls: I think that this may be a proper point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When responding to the debate, are not Ministers supposed to sum up the contributions made from both sides of the House? How can the Minister pretend that he is doing that when he is reading—albeit badly—from a typewritten script?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Raynsford: That most recent intervention—from someone who has not had the decency to attend the debate—was typical of the hon. Gentleman.
As I was saying, there would still be 1 million homes to be built in the countryside. Are the Opposition willing to face that fact? Do they accept the projection of 4.4 million households? If they do not, they should explain why their Secretary of State published the figure and supported it. What target do they want for new homes on brown-field sites? Their figures go up and down like a yo-yo. Two years ago, in their housing White Paper, they suggested 50 per cent. That figure was repeated in the Green Paper issued by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, although he hinted that he might wish to raise it to 60 per cent. The Conservatives then talked about 75 per cent. Today we are told that they propose two thirds-66 per cent.

Mr. Yeo: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: I shall not give way. Sit down. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has said that he is not giving way.

Mr. Raynsford: What has happened in the past nine months to change the previous policy? What is the basis for all the different figures?

Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the Minister, who has finally given way, after an extraordinary display of discourtesy from him, and one from the absent Minister. Our policy was to achieve a steady increase in the proportion of houses built on previously developed sites—up from 38 per cent. in 1985 to 50 per cent. when we left office. We campaigned on a manifesto commitment of more than 60 per cent. Today, we have confirmed that our figure is two thirds. What is the Government's figure?

Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening speech, we shall make our policy clear in a paper to be published in the near future. The Conservatives may change their figures on a whim simply to provide a convenient soundbite, but there is no serious research behind their figures and no authoritative justification for them. We have heard no sensible proposals tonight that would enable them to get near to the figures that they are plucking out of the air.
Presumably, even the Conservatives recognise that, whatever target is chosen, some green-field development will be necessary. It does not take great feats of mental arithmetic—although the hon. Gentleman probably cannot manage work it out—to realise that even 66 per cent. leaves 34 per cent. still to be provided on green-field sites. Where would Conservative Members want that development to go? The answer from the Tories, sadly, has become all too obvious—the old selfish Tory attitude, "Anywhere, but not in my back yard." That is their policy.
If we are to have a sensible debate on the issue, we must recognise that not all development in the countryside is necessarily bad. Many rural communities are crying out for additional housing and other developments so that they can stay alive. It could provide their residents, especially those on low incomes, with affordable housing, better facilities and more jobs.
Of course, the development must be good quality. Developers and councils must work together to produce plans that enhance a sense of local identity that improves the sense of local community. Furthermore, some towns and large villages are especially suitable for sensible development—if, for example, they are located in good public transport corridors, and residents are therefore not dependent on the motor car to get to work—on the grounds that that is what sustainable development may mean.
A key factor—

Mr. John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been here for most of the debate.

Mr. Hayes: The Minister talked about—

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 297.

Division No. 140]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Ballard, Mrs Jackie


Allan, Richard
Beggs, Roy


Amess, David
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bercow, John


Arbuthnot, James
Beresford, Sir Paul


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Body, Sir Richard


Baker, Norman
Boswell, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)





Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brady, Graham
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brake, Tom
Kirkwood, Archy


Brand, Dr Peter
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brazier, Julian
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Breed, Colin
Lansley, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Leigh, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lidington, David


Burns, Simon
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Burstow, Paul
Livsey, Richard


Cable, Dr Vincent
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Loughton, Tim


Chidgey, David
Luff, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clappison, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
MacKay, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maclean, Rt Hon David



McLoughlin, Patrick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Madel, Sir David


Collins, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Cotter, Brian
Maples, John


Cran, James
Mates, Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Dafis, Cynog
May, Mrs Theresa


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moore, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Duncan, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Norman, Archie


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Öpik, Lembit


Evans, Nigel
Ottaway, Richard


Faber, David
Page, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Prior, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Randall, John


Flight, Howard
Rendel, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robathan, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Fox, Dr Liam
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fraser, Christopher
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gale, Roger
Ruffley, David


Garnier, Edward
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
St Aubyn, Nick


Gibb, Nick
Sanders, Adrian


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Sayeed, Jonathan


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Shepherd, Richard


Gorrie, Donald
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Green, Damian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Greenway, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Grieve, Dominic
Soames, Nicholas


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hague, Rt Hon William
Spring, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hammond, Philip
Steen, Anthony


Harris, Dr Evan
Streeter, Gary


Hawkins, Nick
Stunell, Andrew


Hayes, John
Swayne, Desmond


Heald, Oliver
Syms, Robert


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Horam, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, William


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Tyler, Paul


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tyrie, Andrew



Viggers, Peter


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wallace, James


Keetch, Paul
Wardle, Charles


Key, Robert
Waterson, Nigel






Webb, Steve
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Wells, Bowen
Woodward, Shaun


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Willis, Phil
Mr. Stephen Day and


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. John Whittingdale.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises that it was a Labour Government that created the planning system which has done so much to protect the countryside and promote sustainable development; welcomes the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside, including green belts, and to regenerating towns and cities; recognises that the Government is shortly to announce its decisions on the way forward on planning for housing; is confident that the interests of all citizens, both the 80 per cent. and more who live in towns and cities, and those living in the countryside, will be considered; welcomes the importance that the Government attaches to revitalising towns and cities and making the best possible use of brownfield sites and existing buildings to meet housing demand; and believes that the regional planning conferences should be given greater say in reaching decisions on the most sustainable solutions for providing decent homes in line with the Government's recently announced policy for modernising the planning system and using regional planning to find integrated solutions to the problems of economic development, housing and transport.

London Underground

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Although there is no 10-minutes rule on this debate, I appeal for short speeches, so that as many hon. Members as possible can get into the debate.

Sir Norman Fowler: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the delay of the Government in bringing forward proposals for private investment to develop London Underground; believes that such delay is against the interests of both those working for London Underground and the travelling public; and calls on the Government to bring forward urgently plans that will both sustain adequate investment in the system and improve operation.
We last raised the issue of London Underground more than seven months ago, in June. We did so because we wanted some clarity about the Government's position. In government, we set out our policies for bringing private investment to the underground. We did that in 1996 and, especially, in the statement made by the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), in February 1997.
Those policies were rejected by the Labour party, and when it came to power it committed itself to what it termed a public-private partnership. The heads of London Underground were summoned to an urgent meeting with Ministers, literally within days of the Labour Government taking over, and the message went out from the Deputy Prime Minister that immediate action was wanted.
The Government's amendment to our Supply day motion in June asked the House to applaud
the Government's swift action on options for public-private partnerships to improve the Underground".—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 866.]
The phrase "swift action" does not appear in the Government's amendment today. A lot of words appear, but not those; and for very good reason.
Seven months later, in January 1998, we have a better criterion for judging the Government's swift action on the London underground: nothing has happened; the Government train is lost in a tunnel; and, far from there being a sense of urgency, we know neither what their policy is or even what their concept of public-private partnership is. We know that there has been an argument between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Treasury.
We know that the Paymaster General has resisted some of the wackier ideas coming from Transport Ministers about private investment; but while he sits contemplating his offshore trusts, the management of London Underground and, above all, the passengers, wait and wait for some glimmer of policy from Ministers.
That is not the only transport project held up by Ministers; others have similarly disappeared, as the Department has become the Bermuda triangle of Whitehall.
If we take National Air Traffic Services, for example, there is a clear need for investment. It is self-financing and part of a growth business. It would make complete sense to take it out of the public sector borrowing requirement and enable it to make use of commercial


sources of finance. But the Government continue to delay, prevented by the statements that they made in opposition from pursuing common-sense solutions in government. The same is true of the Government's policy on the underground. The policy has been brought to a halt on political grounds and not for any sound reason of transport policy.
No one doubts the importance of the London underground system. There are almost 800 million passenger journeys a year on the system. It is central to any policy to make public transport in London more attractive. No one doubts the potential of the system. If the regularity, reliability and quality can be improved—as they can—even more passengers can be attracted to the underground, with environmental and other benefits. The system is central to any policy to persuade more commuters to switch from car to public transport.
There is one other fact. We all know that only private investment can achieve the full potential of the system—that has been established beyond any doubt. It is the way forward, set out by the last Conservative Government. It is the way forward which Labour Ministers are reluctantly seeking to come to terms with.
Over the past 35 years, there has been substantial public investment in the underground system. In February 1997, the Transport Select Committee printed the evidence from London Transport on underground investment. This showed that since 1960, core investment—including renewals—has averaged £250 million a year at 1997–98 prices. That average was not brought down by the last Conservative Government—it was brought up. At no period during previous Labour Governments did their investment programme come up to £250 million—not once in the years that they were in power.
What brought the average up was the investment programme of the last Conservative Government—particularly from the mid-1980s onwards. In the 1990s, we invested £3 billion in the underground. Even earlier than that—at the time I took over as Secretary of State for Transport—we managed substantially to improve the investment programme left by the previous Labour Government. We take no lessons from the Labour party on capital investment. Anyone who can remember anything about politics will remember the capital cuts imposed by the last Labour Government. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) would like to correct any of the figures that I have given, I will gladly give way.

Ms Oona King: indicated dissent.

Sir Norman Fowler: I am sure that the hon. Lady will take part in the debate with her usual skill.
As virtually every commentator now agrees, the future lies with private investment. What is more, given the right plan, there is no reason why private investment cannot be attracted to London Underground for the infrastructure and the rolling stock. Given the right policies, we could be standing on the verge of the most exciting modernisation programme for London Underground since the war.
What are the Government waiting for? We all know one reason for the delay. They know that private investment is the only way forward, but they cannot bring

themselves to set out a policy which could be called privatisation. Their heart is not in private investment. Let us take the voyage of discovery of the Deputy Prime Minister as an example. Back in 1981—when I was Secretary of State for Transport—when we were denationalising the ports of the British Transport Docks Board and some of the subsidiaries of British Rail, such as the hotels, in the Transport Bill of that year, no one could have been more hostile than the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the Second Reading debate, the Deputy Prime Minister wound up for the Opposition and said:
Nationalised industries have been disadvantaged by successive Governments over the past few years. They have not received sufficient money for investment. That is the unpalatable fact. That was because of Treasury rules on the amount of investment …
It should be made clear to all who seek to buy shares in these companies that they will not benefit from their action. As soon as the Labour Opposition are returned to power, they will take the quickest means possible to regain control of these sectors and to withdraw the obstacles that have prevented their development in the past."—[Official Report, 13 January 1981; Vol. 996, c. 932.]
We are still waiting for that action. That shows the authentic voice of the Deputy Prime Minister. He wants to see the Treasury rules relaxed, the continuation of public ownership and the expansion of public investment. That is a perfectly legitimate position. It was, after all, the position of the Labour party for most of its period in opposition. There was nothing about private investment in Labour's speeches—that came very late on the scene.
The only trouble with that traditional Labour party view is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not agree with it. As the Chancellor is, according to his own account, the real Prime Minister—with only a vague President figure above him—the Chancellor's will prevails. The result is that Transport Ministers have been desperately trying to find some half-way house between privatisation and the present public ownership system. That is a fact. Yet as they work, examples of successful private investment come in to mock their efforts.
On Friday, I was at Heathrow airport, looking at the transport infrastructure there. The British Airports Authority—itself privatised—is now on the verge of opening the brand new Heathrow Express service all the way into the airport. The cost of £440 million will be borne by the company—that is the investment. A privatised company setting up and financing an entirely new railways service; that would never have happened in the public sector. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. John McDonnell: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman was on the inaugural journey, when the train broke down.

Sir Norman Fowler: I wish I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman. I shall try to get him to concentrate on this point. It is true that customers have to be taken on by coach, but, over the next month, we will have a service which goes right through to the terminal. I would have thought that anyone interested in transport, London and the travelling public would welcome that. Yet a trivial point is raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McDonnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way. The intervention was so trivial the first time that I cannot bear to hear it the second time.
Railtrack plans to spend more than £10 billion over the next 10 years renewing and developing the rail network. Let us take the joint investment programme to transform the west coast main line—my local line back to Birmingham, about which the Minister conceivably knows a little. Some £2.1 billion has been invested by Railtrack and £750 million by the Virgin rail group for new trains. That would not have been achieved in the public sector. There is no doubt about that. Local Members of Parliament pressed British Rail to do that year after year, but it was not done.
More frequent and reliable trains will result in the journey time to Manchester being cut eventually to one hour 45 minutes, and the journey time to Birmingham being cut to under one hour 15 minutes. By any standards, those are dramatic improvements. However, rather than taking the obvious course of privatisation, Labour Ministers go round and round the course again, seeking other options.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman, and much of what he says about the past investment record is true. Just to ensure that the record is clear for this debate, does the Conservative party now argue that London Underground should in future have no public investment—that it should be entirely privatised and all its funding raised by the private sector in the private market?

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall come to that point and to our proposed solution; it is integral to the argument that I am developing. First, however, let me draw attention to the fact that, by any standards, the privatisation of the railway system has led to tremendous gains for investment in the system. Of course we have not seen the full product yet. It would be unrealistic to say that we had done so or that we could do so in the next year or two, but I do not doubt that in the next three, four or five years it will become obvious that the system is in the process of being transformed.
With that evidence, and with that proof, I find it curious that Labour Ministers, instead of taking the obvious course of privatisation—the obvious course of private investment—seek other options, which become progressively more complex and which, in the end, in my view, are unlikely to serve the interests of the public. For the purposes of this transport debate, we must decide whose side we are on. We are not on the side of the providers. We are not on the side of the unions. The criterion is the interests of the travelling public.

Mr. Roger Casale: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the obvious course of privatisation. If it is such an obvious course, I wonder whether he can name a single major city in the European Union with an underground system that has seen the light and followed the course of privatisation.

Sir Norman Fowler: One could have said that about any of the privatisations that successive Conservative Governments initiated from 1979 onwards. I can remember it—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall tell him that his intervention was very similar to the argument used by the present Deputy Prime Minister when he opposed the denationalisation of the British Transport Docks Board. "How many ports have

been in private ownership?" asked Labour Members at the time. Well, we denationalised the ports and it has been a remarkable success. That does not constitute an argument.
An option that the Government are now examining—many say their favourite—is to divide the infrastructure company from the operating company and to keep the operating company in public ownership while giving, say, 30-year leases to two or three infrastructure companies. By any standards, that is a fairly complex proposal, but basically, the objections to it are twofold. First, it is obviously fundamentally different from the Railtrack solution, because in that case both infrastructure provider and operator are in the private sector and have similar interests in developing the business.
It is no secret that the management of London Underground does not want the system to be broken up; it has made that clear. However, I can think of few worse ways of dividing the system than to keep the operator in the public sector and divide the infrastructure by granting three private leases. There is unlimited potential for dispute in such a system. That option might please one or two unions, but it will not benefit the travelling public in London.
Secondly, and even more fundamentally, we object to the idea that the operating company stays in so-called public ownership. Experience has shown that the advantages of privatisation go far beyond giving companies investment freedom. That is only part of the case for privatisation. The other part is that it gives management more freedom to manage. All too often, public ownership means management interference from civil servants and Ministers—people who have never experienced running a business. That is the management case for privatisation.
The most remarkable feature of successful privatisation has been that the success of privatised companies has been achieved, not by importing shoals of new managers into the company, but by empowering existing management. I mentioned the British Transport Docks Board. Its success as Associated British Ports and as one of the top 200 British companies has been achieved by many of the managers and staff who worked for it before privatisation—the vast majority.
I shall now answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In my view, the real options for London Underground are the three options that were set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire when he was Transport Secretary in February 1997. The three options were the sale of London Underground as a single business; the sale or franchising of, let us say, three vertically integrated lines or groups of lines, under which a single operator would also be responsible for track and the stations; or a structure, like the national railway, with a private sector track authority and private sector operator.
I would prefer three vertically integrated companies. However, whatever form such a privatisation took, the 10 commitments that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire gave to passengers under the previous Government would obviously continue—commitments such as safety, through-ticketing and concessionary fares.
I emphasise two other commitments. In my view, employee ownership would be much preferable to so-called public ownership; it would be much better


to give those working for the underground a real stake in its success. Secondly, the proceeds of such a privatisation should be ploughed back into the system, not into the Treasury, as we said before the general election.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has only partly answered my question. Can he confirm that none of the options that he described would require extra public investment—that the only public investment, so to speak, would be the recycled profit on the private operation, which would be ring-fenced and put back into the system?

Sir Norman Fowler: The proceeds would obviously go back into the system. One can visualise—just as one can in the case of the railways—that a service or part of the system might be uneconomic at some time, but obviously the aim would be to make it self-sufficient. It would be foolish to close all doors.
The Conservatives have consistently proposed a way forward for the underground—a way which benefits passengers, involves staff and gives freedom to management. The Labour party has criticised that, but has come up with precisely nothing in the way of policy in its place. We wait, as do underground passengers, until the issue reaches the top of the Deputy Prime Minister's in-tray.

Mr. Casale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He said that in February 1997, the Transport Secretary was left with little option but to privatise the London underground system. Surely that was because the November Budget of 1996 had drastically cut public investment to London Transport. I received a letter in February 1997 from Denis Tunnicliffe, managing director of London Underground Ltd, who spoke of the "crushing blow" dealt to London Underground's investment plans as a result of the overall London Transport funding settlement in the last Tory Budget of November 1996. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that? The Transport Secretary in 1997 had few other options open to him.

Sir Norman Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making a speech in the middle of mine, and I shall seek to respond to it. I did not say that our Transport Secretary was forced into a position where he had to choose privatisation; that is not my argument. I have already covered the investment situation, and I emphasise again that Conservative Governments' record on investing in London Underground is infinitely better than that of any Labour Government that we have had since 1960. That is the position and the Minister knows it. Everyone knows that that is the position.
The advantage of privatisation is not to do with one year's public spending or another year's public spending, it is that we can bring the underground to the position where it can be developed and realise its full potential. That is the case that I am putting. We have consistently said that that is the way forward. The Government have consistently opposed and criticised that, but have come up with no policy. We wait and underground passengers wait until that issue arrives at the top of the Deputy Prime Minister's in-tray.
Let us make no mistake. I have to say in all courtesy that no one speaking from the Treasury Bench this evening is in any position to make a decision. Even the sparkling good humour of the Minister for Transport in London cannot disguise the fact that the organ grinder is employed elsewhere trying to sort out another problem of Government, and, without the organ grinder, we are left with the assistants.
There is a fundamental point here which goes to the heart of the new giant Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions which the Government have created. I am old enough to remember that the last time Labour was in power, it took credit for doing exactly the opposite of what this Government have done. At that stage, the Labour Government separated transport and the environment into two Departments, saying that it showed the importance that they placed on transport. That was their case. They set it out and took credit for it. They went round the country saying how clever they had been in separating out environment and transport matters. Now they have put them together again and, in an altogether typical way, have gone round the country claiming credit for yet another U-turn of policy.
The Conservative Government continued with the previous model—the separation of the two Departments—I believe correctly. Under the present structure in Whitehall, decision making is a slow and cumbersome process. The issues pile up, but no one, apart from the Deputy Prime Minister, has the power to act. That is no way to run transport matters, and it is certainly no way to develop the underground.
The people who matter most in the debate are the travelling public. They have been badly served by the Government's undoubted delay. No one can seriously deny the delay that has taken place. Even worse, they now face the prospect that the Government will produce a half-baked scheme that will satisfy no one. The tragedy is that the Government are set to miss an outstanding opportunity to develop the underground to its full potential, and it is for that reason that I ask the House to support our motion.

The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
wants to see a modern, efficient, affordable and reliable Underground system, worthy of the people of London, and accountable to the people of London; deplores the substantial investment backlog in the London Underground which this Government inherited from the previous administration; applauds the Government's rejection of the wholesale privatisation of the London Underground, as proposed by the previous Government; and welcomes the Government's action to explore options for a public-private partnership for the London Underground, which will safeguard its commitment to the public interest, guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers, and secure the resources necessary to ensure Londoners and visitors to the capital city have the modern Underground system they deserve.".
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for again raising the important issue of the future of London Underground. It is seven months since we last debated this important issue in the House. Contrary to the picture painted by the right hon. Gentleman, we have been far from idle during those seven months. I am happy to report that we have made good progress, and I expect that we shall be in a position soon to set out our proposals.
The challenge facing us, which I fully recognise, is to get on with finding a solution to London Underground's funding problems, and to make sure that we find the right solution. We know that the underground is crucial to London's success. It is far too important and valuable an asset for us to take chances or to rush into a snap decision. Nor are we approaching this from an ideological standpoint which says that all that is public is good and all that is private is bad. That distinguishes our approach to the matter and other major transport issues from that of the previous Administration.
Labour Members know full well that both the public and private sectors have a part to play in Britain's success. That is why we talk of the need to develop a public-private partnership for the underground—a new model that will see us harness the best that the public and private sectors have to offer.
I am happy to say again that wholesale privatisation is simply not an option for us. For decades, investment in the underground has been below that needed properly to maintain the system. For 18 years, the Conservative Government failed to tackle the problem. It is preposterous for the right hon. Gentleman to present that wholly fictional, rosy account of investment in the underground under the Conservative Government. He knows perfectly well of the failure to make provision for the overrun in the Jubilee line and the huge investment backlog which the Government have inherited from the previous Administration.
After years of neglect, the previous Government, in their last few months in office, effectively attempted to abdicate their responsibility by taking an axe to the underground's grant in the 1996 Budget, as has been pointed out, and also announcing their discredited and rightly unpopular plans for wholesale privatisation.
That was the Labour Government's inheritance. The right hon. Gentleman now has the effrontery to criticise the Government for not yet having brought forward their modernising plan. I remind him that, under the previous Government's ill-prepared scheme for wholesale privatisation, action on the investment backlog would not have begun until 2001. The right hon. Gentleman and the House know that.
Many hon. Members are familiar with the leaked memorandum which I have in my hand from the then Secretary of State for Transport to the Prime Minister, clearly showing that their plans for wholesale privatisation had not been worked out in any substance, and confirming that there would be no question of the privatisation leading to any addressing of the huge investment backlog until 2001 at the earliest.
It ill becomes the Conservative party to tell the Government that, after nine months, we are somehow letting Londoners down because we have not yet produced our detailed plans, which we shall produce shortly for rescuing London Underground from years of neglect.

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman said several times that he is against the wholesale privatisation of London Underground. What exactly does he mean by that? Does he mean that the operating company will remain in public hands? Can he confirm that that is the position?

Dr. Strang: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what I mean by wholesale privatisation. I mean what was

referred to in the memorandum. After a cursory discussion of what might be received from the privatisation of London Underground, which was about £600 million—it goes on to suggest that people might have to be paid to take it away—it states:
This is a very basic analysis, undertaken before we have chosen a structural option for the privatised underground, before we have fully considered restructuring costs, before we have discussed the details with London Underground and several years in advance of privatisation.
That is wholesale privatisation. That is what the Government had in mind for the underground. Of course we reject that absolutely.

Sir Norman Fowler: But what does the hon. Gentleman mean by it?

Dr. Strang: I shall come to that.
There have been three main strands to our work on the issue, all of which are now coming together. Let me dispose first of all the hearsay that the right hon. Gentleman peddled yet-again that there is some sort of disagreement between the Treasury and Transport Ministers on the issue. On the contrary, I can tell him that there is tremendous expertise in the Treasury on the issue of public-private partnerships. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and I value very much the help and advice that we are receiving from the Treasury on public-private partnership. That is the position and the right hon. Gentleman should recognise it, rather than just quote some tittle-tattle and hearsay from the newspapers.
Let me outline the work that we are doing. On the underground, last July we appointed Price Waterhouse to advise us on the structural options most likely to meet our objectives. The terms of reference that we set for that exercise, in accordance with our manifesto policy, were, first, to safeguard and improve London Underground's service to passengers, with agreed safety standards; secondly, to ensure that London Underground contributes towards an integrated transport strategy for London; thirdly, quickly to reduce or eliminate the underground's investment backlog; fourthly, to provide value for money for the taxpayer; and, fifthly, to attract private sector investment. We encouraged Price Waterhouse to explore any option or permutation it thought would meet those objectives.
We have already set out the various approaches that Price Waterhouse considered. Those included debt funding, with continued public ownership; various partnership structures, including full and partial concessions and joint ventures; and new operational structures, including various ways of dividing London Underground into separate businesses. Price Waterhouse reported back to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister last October.
I stress that in all our considerations safety must be our top priority. It is impossible to think about safety without remembering the terrible tragedy at King's Cross 10 years ago.

Sir Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has quoted from the Price


Waterhouse report at some length. Does not that mean that the report must now be placed in the Library of the House of Commons?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for Ministers to decide whether to place in the Library documents on which they comment at the Dispatch Box, unless they are official documents.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The document is an official study, sponsored by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Minister is relying on it for his arguments to the House. The custom has always been that such documentation should be available to the whole House, so that it may judge whether the Minister's interpretation of it has been selective or bowdlerised. We need to have access to the document. I insist that that has been our practice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that it is an external report, which has been provided for the Minister's benefit. If it is not and it is an official document, the Minister will have heard the comments that have been made.

Dr. Strang: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if I show a little hesitation, it is because I resent those wholly bogus points of order, particularly from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield knows perfectly well the rules of the House. I did not quote from the document, but simply set out the criteria. You and I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the point of order is bogus, and it ill behoves the right hon. Gentleman to waste the time of the House in such a short debate.
Much has been done to improve safety on the underground since the King's Cross tragedy, and valuable lessons have been learnt. We are very clear in our commitment that safety will be an integral part of the public-private partnership that we are developing. We consulted the Health and Safety Commission as part of the process of developing our proposals. The commission will continue to be fully involved in ensuring that passengers and workers have adequate protection.
Price Waterhouse's analysis has been most valuable, and has been central to our deliberations. However, we have sought to bring London Transport and London Underground into the process, drawing on their considerable expertise and knowledge. I am extremely grateful for their helpful and co-operative attitude, from board level downwards. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hard work that London Underground staff put into running services every day, in the face of crumbling infrastructure. This year, London Underground is set to run a record number of train kilometres—more than 62 million—and passenger numbers have risen by 7 per cent. this year.
Thus, we have Price Waterhouse's work and London Transport's analysis, and we have received a number of useful submissions and representations from other sources: the trade unions, the London Passenger Watchdog Committee and London First, to name but

a few. We are now close to reaching decisions on the way forward. In reaching those decisions, we want to take account of all the views we have heard.
We have in mind the two other initiatives to which I referred earlier: our plans for the governance of London; and our development of an integrated transport policy.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have listened to what the Minister has said and dissent from none of it. The report has been with the Government for three months, and wholesale privatisation has been ruled out. Will there be a majority public sector stake in London Underground, or is it still the case, even after nine months, that nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out?

Dr. Strang: I cannot pre-empt our announcement to the extent that the hon. Gentleman seeks. I understand his wish for that, but, at this stage, while we can rule out wholesale privatisation—we did so in our manifesto and continue to do so—the nature of the public-private partnership is yet to be decided. There are several permutations. To be fair to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, he referred to several theoretical options, some of which could be wholly in the private sector and some of which could be partially in the private sector.
We set out our proposals for an elected mayor and an assembly for London in a Green Paper last July, since when we have received a great many responses. One of the key messages to come through—this will come as no surprise to London Members of Parliament—is the importance of transport for London. London Transport and London Underground provide many of the services that are the lifeblood of London.
Last year, for the third year running, Healey and Baker's annual survey of European cities rated London the best city in which to locate a business. Communications and access to markets are cited as the dominant factors in determining where to locate. London is regarded as offering excellent access to markets, and ranks first in terms of external and internal transport services.
Let me state unequivocally that we know London's importance as a world city, and we are committed to safeguarding and promoting that role, because the whole country benefits from London's pre-eminent position. We also know that, for many people—probably for many of us in this Chamber—London is defined in terms of Frank Pick's famous tube map. It is a symbol of London, which is known throughout the world. London is the capital of the United Kingdom. Modernising its transport system is a London priority, but it is also a UK priority.
We have been working hard, since the consultation period on our London Green Paper ended in October, on the details of our proposals. The Green Paper posed more than 60 questions, and we have considered carefully all the views that we received. We will publish a White Paper in March, in good time for hon. Members and the people of London to digest before the referendum in May.
That does not mean that we shall leave Londoners waiting for the next two years and more before the underground's problems are addressed. London deserves better than that. Subject to the outcome of the referendum, we shall introduce a Bill in the autumn to establish a


Greater London authority. The Bill will make London Transport more accountable to the people of London. It is surely right that London Transport should be accountable to Londoners. The Bill will also include the provisions necessary to enable a public-private partnership for London Underground to be implemented.
In the meantime, given all the options that we are considering, London Underground will be able to make substantial progress in implementing a public-private partnership before the Greater London Authority Bill is enacted. That could start immediately after we announce our plans to the House. One of the main elements of the White Paper will be our proposals for establishing a better approach to the delivery of transport services for London.
The new London assembly will have responsibility for buses and the tube. It will have influence over the development of rail services and responsibility for roads, strategic planning and land use. For all those reasons, London will have the opportunity to develop fully integrated transport systems for the benefit of Londoners.
Last August, we published a consultation document on developing an integrated transport policy for the whole country. Around 6,500 people took the time and trouble to respond. Around two thirds of the responses were from individuals, the rest from businesses, lobby groups and transport academics. We have been impressed by the effort that has obviously been put into them.
Many responses highlighted the need to improve public transport, in particular by ensuring more reliable services, better timetabling information and better interchange facilities with other modes. Our work on a public-private partnership for London Underground must address those concerns. We are working towards publication of a White Paper on an integrated transport policy this spring. We are determined to develop an integrated approach to transport planning and investment that enables us to make the best use of the infrastructure we already have and to plan our investment strategy to target resources where they are most needed.
Good communications are central to our overall aim of a lasting improvement in everyone's quality of life. London already has a higher than average proportion of public transport trips, but we cannot sustain and build on that with a crumbling infrastructure. As we have been debating these matters, many Londoners have had to make their way home through shabby stations and walk-down escalators and waited too long for overcrowded trains. That must end. Londoners deserve a modern transport system of which they can be proud. This Government are determined to provide them with just that.

Mr. John Wilkinson: What a pleasure it was to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Unlike any Labour Member, he is a former Transport Minister with a successful record. He was a notable moderniser in his day. He has come back refreshed from his sabbatical term with his family to give a magisterial critique as Opposition Front-Bench spokesman of the Government's rambling and vacuous amendment to our motion.
We heard no concrete substantive proposals from Labour. All we know is that the Labour party had 18 long years to think how to run the London Transport underground system better, but, at the end of all that time,

it has had to go to Price Waterhouse. We are not vouchsafed a glimpse or a genuine quote, let alone the document itself, to study. Perhaps it is a good thing we cannot see it, because I suspect that Labour will ignore any sensible advice when its predilection has always been to follow its ideological predispositions.
My constituents, as the Minister described when he was trying to tug at our heart strings, genuinely suffer considerable inconvenience in getting to work. They are reliant on three lines: the Metropolitan, Piccadilly and Central lines. The London Transport underground system is crucial to many of them in getting to and from their work. Since the Labour Government came to power—one must remember that they came to power on effusive promises to improve the London transport system—nothing has happened, except a substantial increase, way above inflation, in underground rail fares.
One should in justice record the background. My constituents at the same time have to pay considerable extra mortgage payments. Mortgage interest rates have gone up five times. If they take to their cars, traffic jams are as bad as ever they were, but fuel duty has gone up. Their pensions will probably be less good at the end of their working lives, because of the abolition of dividend interest tax relief.
In every way, their living standards and quality of life are being squeezed. They are getting more and more resentful, because, as with health, so in transport, they see with every day that passes that all the rhetoric of the Labour party at the general election was no more than that: pure rhetoric. Labour has yet to come up with any satisfactory, concrete proposals for improving the system.
The Labour party is effusive in its criticism of our proposals, but privatisation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield rightly said, has worked in transport as in so many other areas. We all have our own model, but I prefer privatisation of the whole system. Like him, I think that the key to privatisation success for the underground would be not only a public subscription of shares but a share issue on very preferential terms for those who work in the London Transport underground.

Mr. Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the benefits of privatisation. Last evening, a young east European tourist was raped and left for dead in the lavatory of a Connex South Eastern train. She was not found until the train was on its way back to the south coast. Does he consider that a glowing example of the benefits of privatisation?

Mr. Wilkinson: No. That has nothing to do with privatisation. Anti-social, criminal behaviour has taken place on British Rail rolling stock as it did in the tragic incident last night. The hon. Gentleman is letting his understandable emotion at that heinous crime get the better of his political judgment.
It is crucial that there should be additional investment, and fast. The model proposed by the Labour party is a recipe for confusion, even more delay and uncertain delivery of service. I do not understand how Labour can believe that leaving the running of the rolling stock and the operation of the system in the public sector, with some of the track networks hived off on shortish leases to the private sector, could work. The Minister would have done the House a service had he explained his view of those


suggestions, because, from what we read in the press, they appear to be the ones most favoured by the Labour Government at present.
The manifesto for London that the Labour party produced at the general election says that, in privatisation,
public assets would be sold off cheap. Much-needed investment would be delayed.
The delay in investment is clear from the indecision of the Labour party in government.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: My constituents and commuters who live in Harwich and Clacton are suffering the consequences of rail privatisation on their lines: delays, derailments and all sorts of other things. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe that they need advice from someone who wrecked not only the railways, but, through deregulation, bus services? They need no lessons from Conservative Members.

Mr. Wilkinson: No one is seeking to deliver lessons. Serious-minded Members are trying to come up with solutions that will meet the vexatious problem of public transport in London. London's transport infrastructure has been in need of further investment for far too long. The Treasury is clearly unable to provide adequate funding. It certainly did not in the Labour party's period in office, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is not here. He was perhaps the most interested in the London transport system. The hon. Member was a pioneer of low fares, but he found that low fares, if discounted to an excessive degree, only produced a further deficit, and gravely damaged the financial strength of London Transport Underground. It is only since LTU introduced more realistic pricing that its finances have been restored to a semblance of order and balance.
LTU cannot always be reliant on the Treasury, and, in current circumstances, it is plain that even the Labour Government recognise it. What is required is an incentive for everybody in LTU to perform to the best of their ability and to have an opportunity thereby to build up profits for themselves and for the system. I can see no model other than privatisation which would be able to achieve it.

Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilkinson: I wish to make one final point before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Any model, be it a public-private partnership or wholesale privatisation, will require a regulator, but I do not believe that the mayor of London and his authority are the people to provide that function. We shall need a regulator set up with the very strictest statutory obligation to be independent of politics. The worst thing for LTU's future would be for the management of the system to be second-guessed or interfered with by the Greater London authority and/or the mayor.
It is also instructive to note that the Labour Government do not even propose that constituency representatives should sit on the GLA. My constituents and those of my

hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who are so dependent on the efficiency of the system for their commuting, will have no certainty that sitting on that authority will be a representative with those interests in mind, because there will be no geographical connection between constituencies and representation on the authority.

Mr. McDonnell: I rise in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), whose name has been mentioned. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the critical issue relating to London Transport in the 1980s was the lack of infrastructure investment? Such investment was controlled by the House through a money Bill procedure, whereby the GLC submitted an annual money Bill to be voted on by the House. Each year, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues voted against that money Bill, and so started the erosion of infrastructure investment, against the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and others of us who served on the GLC.

Mr. Wilkinson: The facts speak for themselves and are vividly displayed in the pillargram on page 2 of the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee on Transport's study of London transport, which was produced in the last Session of Parliament. It can easily be seen that investment shot up in the latter years of the Conservative Administration, and that Labour' s performance during its term in office was never even remotely comparable. Those are the facts.
I do have some sympathy with the approach taken by the hon. Member for Brent, East in that I believe that LTU could be more imaginative in its fares structure. I would advocate, for example, an early-bird discounted fare to encourage people to get on the tube before the rush hour. At present, the travelcard comes in at 9.30 am, but people should be encouraged to get on the tube really early with a tempting discounted fare.
There should also be a night-owl travelcard to discourage people from using their cars to go to the theatre in the evening, just as the early-bird fare might discourage people from taking to their cars and making the morning rush hour worse. There is a great deal to be done in fares policy, but that is the sort of thing which a privatised LTU system would have all the commercial incentive to do.
I was struck by the Minister's claim to be a moderniser as, in the current Administration, it has little credibility—he has many qualities, but I do not regard him as a moderniser. I had hoped—perhaps vainly and wholly futilely—that the Minister would come up with some ideas for how the LTU network could be improved and extended in future. He cannot do so, because, even with public-private partnerships, the system would continue to be heavily reliant on funding from the Exchequer, and he cannot surmise what would be available. If the network were in private hands, there would be much more chance that some of the exciting projects we need would come off.
Those projects include the Croxley link, which would extend the Metropolitan line through Watford high street to Watford Junction railway station, where it would join up with the west coast railway line to the north-west. It could be built at relatively small cost. The Jubilee line


extension could be accelerated. Last but not least, a project that has been on ice for far too long for lack of funding—crossrail—could get off the ground. It genuinely is the high-speed rail link we need for the next century.

Ms Linda Perham: I support the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I welcome the debate and I am pleased that the Opposition are so concerned about the future of the London underground that they have chosen it again as the subject of one of their precious Opposition day debates, seven months after the first on 25 June 1997.

Mr. Geraint Davies: They have no imagination.

Ms Perham: It demonstrates to me, to other hon. Members and to the public at large that, as my hon. Friend says, they have no imagination or no shame—perhaps neither. Perhaps they think that the Labour Government are doing so well that there is nothing else worth talking about.
I have travelled on the underground for many years, and my constituency contains eight Central line stations. The underground has always been my preferred mode of travel to work and, when I lived in south-east London, where I was born, I often envied the residents of other parts of London with easier access to the underground. When I moved to live in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), in 1969 under a Labour Government, the Piccadilly and Bakerloo lines that conveyed me to County hall, where I worked in the Greater London council research library, provided an invariably reliable service.
When I married, several years later, my husband and I decided that we wanted to live not more than five minutes' walk from an underground station, which is how we came to settle in Hainault in the Ilford, North constituency at the eastern end of the Central line. Unfortunately, in the 25 years we have lived in the constituency, we have seen that once excellent service deteriorate. In the November 1996 Budget, the Conservative Government demonstrated in an obvious and cynical way their lack of commitment to that vital public transport service, by slashing London Transport's core funding grant and landing London Underground with an estimated £480 million overspend on the Jubilee line extension. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) drew attention to that in his intervention.
That happened despite the document "A Transport Strategy for London", which the Department of Transport published in April 1996. It stated:
The Government would hope to maintain London Underground investment at broadly the current level until the investment backlog has been eliminated.
Opposition Members may try in vain to defend the Conservative Government's investment record, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London said in her reply to the debate on 25 June, the Tory planned investment was
set to fall from £312 million this year to £197 million next year … the same level of investment as in 1976."—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 898.]

For my constituents, fares have risen steadily since the great "fares fair" initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in the early 1980s, and the service has declined. When I chaired the highways committee of the London borough of Redbridge in 1995–96, I also chaired the London Transport liaison group, whose meetings—then, as now—were regularly attended by the general manager of the Central line, Geoff Thackwray. That long-suffering, honest individual bravely defended his service, listened to complaints and made improvements where possible. His patience and helpfulness are much appreciated by elected representatives and residents alike.
Because of the provision of so many Central line stations in Ilford, North, many working people choose employment in the City, central London and even west London, as my husband and I have over the years. In fact, more than 60 per cent. of Redbridge residents travel to work outside the borough, the majority using the underground. I am convinced from the feedback that we received before and after the general election in May that the problems of London Underground, and dissatisfaction with Conservative policies on London's public transport, played a significant part in the determination of the people of Ilford, North and other London constituencies to rid themselves of the previous Government. North-east London saw huge swings to Labour in May; apart from my swing of 17.3 per cent., my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill)— representing users of the Victoria and District lines—achieved swings of 17.9, 16 and 15.4 per cent. respectively.
A month before the general election, on 2 April 1997, the Evening Standard—which is hardly a consistent supporter of Labour, old or new—featured a full-page editorial entitled, "Our tube system—the Tory shame". It stated:
Over the last five years, this vital public service has been betrayed and short-changed by a Government which has often seemed resentful of its very existence. The result is that the Tube, despite the best efforts of London Underground management, is gradually breaking down.
That editorial went on to cite massive power failures, signalling problems—Central line commuters like me know all about those—mechanical and infrastructure problems, an increase in crime and reductions in staff. All those problems stemmed from a single cause, said the Evening Standard:
this Government's gradual withdrawal of funding from London Underground.
The editorial concluded:
As the Tories seek London's votes on 1 May, the first charge they should be asked to answer on their record of the past 18 years is that of betraying the vital services of Britain's capital. And what minister will lack the shame to blush and hide his face when the question is put?
People in London delivered their verdict and voted in their thousands, because they wanted action to be taken to provide Londoners with a proper transport service: a service to get them to work on time, to take them for their leisure to our great theatres, museums and other sights of London—buildings such as this very place—and to send visitors away at the end of their stay with a good impression of travelling in the capital. Those people did not want a service with ever rising fares, struggling to


survive, its investment programme savaged, consigned to being run down and sold off. The new Labour Government came to office pledged to a clean, efficient, safe and reliable transport system for London, promising a new public-private partnership to improve the underground, run in the public interest and providing value for money.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—the Deputy Prime Minister and organ grinder—and his team have been working hard in the months since the election to find the right solution for the funding of the underground. Opposition Members could not get that right in 18 years, but they accuse us of delay in the short time for which we have been in office. In the end, pathetically, they offered up only wholesale privatisation. This Government will deliver a London underground service with an integrated transport system for a London returned to democratic accountability: a capital service for the greatest city in the world.

Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the debate, but I am surprised—as I was on 25 June, when the Tories last tabled the subject for debate—that they have chosen to highlight the sorry state of the tube system, thereby drawing attention to their own poor record in their last year of office.
I know that a week is a long time in politics. Eight months is obviously long enough for collective amnesia and, perhaps, for DOR syndrome—denial of responsibility syndrome—to set in on the Tory Benches. The first signs of that syndrome emerged in the earlier debate about developments in the countryside, during which members of the official Opposition came out as born-again Swampys. If you can believe that, you can believe anything.
Let no one forget that it was the Tories who tried to flog off the tube for the paltry sum of £600 million—a plan which they hastily dropped when it was leaked to Londoners—when it had property assets valued at up to £13 billion. The Tories must take the lion's share of the blame for leaving the tube with a backlog of repairs equivalent to no less than £170 per Londoner, a delayed Tory tax bombshell which will hit Londoners sooner or later. That is the legacy of the previous Government's "heavy investment programme".
The business community supports the view that the previous Government failed London. London First has said that
the last Government cut public funding for the existing system below the level needed even to sustain it in its present condition, in spite of the fact that they accepted that there was a £1.2 billion backlog"—
a backlog of repairs, that is. The Confederation of British Industry has said that
there has been serious under-investment for a long time".
With a record such as theirs on the tube, Conservative Members should mind the credibility gap. They praise railway privatisation to the heavens, but conveniently forget the increased subsidy that has gone to the privatised railways—a subsidy of £2 billion—and the declining services provided by the train operating companies. Conservative Members should be a little more

circumspect in their praise of railway privatisation. Moreover, they have completely fallen down the credibility gap by attacking this Government's proposals on the basis of their complexity, and the communication difficulties that might arise if the system were split. That is rich, coming from a Government who introduced a host of communication difficulties by privatising the railways.
What of the new Government's record? We know that before the election and since, they have ruled out wholesale privatisation. In July, they commissioned a report on the future of the tube. In late September or early October, Price Waterhouse delivered its findings. Since then, not much has happened. A series of leaks have appeared in various papers, and extracts from the Price Waterhouse report have been read to us tonight.
The Times reported on 24 September:
Tony Blair is to back controversial recommendations to privatise London Underground by splitting it into as many as four parts and selling up to 51 per cent. of the businesses".
The Financial Times stated on 16 January:
Ministers were yesterday moving close to a deal…
under which the infrastructure would be split from train operations and leased to the private sector in two or three parts".
Those two options are not entirely consistent, and there seems to be a difference of opinion within the Government about which way to go forward. It is certain that neither of those positions is consistent with the stance taken by the Minister for Transport in London before the election. I understand, although I did not see it myself, that she appeared on television with a pair of scissors and a map of the tube, saying that she would not allow the tube to be cut in half through privatisation. However, what she did not make clear at the time was that she proposed cutting the tube four ways, not just in half.
In the meantime, the backlog of repairs grows. We are now eight months into the new Government. What does London First say about the new Government's performance?
Eight months on from the Election… we still await the outlines of a solution.
The Minister's speech has not added to my understanding of the Government's proposals. It has merely reinforced the confusion that there was about Government proposals in June. I feel sorry that the Minister has not clarified the Government's plans. I look forward to his announcement soon, as he put it—in due course.
The Liberal Democrat position is that the Government must have in mind some objectives, although not necessarily a structure. We want the tube to be an integrated system with through-ticketing. Fare structures will need to be regulated. We want responsibility for running the tube to be clearly identified with a particular person or organisation. We want the financial means to deal with the backlog of repairs and to build new lines. Changes should not delay investment.
Tube passengers have suffered enough stop-go on the Central line and overcrowding at Oxford Circus station. They do not need another reorganisation. They want a tube that runs on time, not trains that stop unannounced in tunnels.
Our proposal for a public interest company with public sector objectives and ethos would meet those objectives. It would ensure that the tube remained an integrated


transport system with through-ticketing. The fare structures would be regulated, probably through the Greater London authority, and there would be clear responsibility for running the tube. It is not an untested model: similar models operate in New York and San Francisco.
We shall will the means. Whatever model is adopted and however it is dressed up, the investment programme will cost money. Whether it comes as a subsidy to the private sector or through any other route, more money is needed for that programme. We have offered three concrete proposals—so far in the debate, we have heard few of those.
Our proposals are, first, a charge on non-residential car parking spaces, which London First estimates would raise about £150 million a year; secondly, road congestion charges which, it was suggested by the London congestion charging research programme in 1995, could raise anything from £95 million to £795 million a year; and thirdly, a temporary increase in business rates for London's largest businesses, which could raise £150 million—a view supported by some, but not all, London First members. Incidentally, those measures would also help the Secretary of State to meet his targets for CO2 reduction.
Our proposals would give Londoners a transport system to match that of any of our European partners. They would get cleaner air, less congestion, fewer pollution-related illnesses such as asthma and the possibility of cheaper fares.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: And a Conservative Government.

Mr. Brake: I doubt whether they will get a Conservative Government for a very long time. The Tory Opposition have no solution. Over the past eight months, they have been getting rid of facts with relief, to adapt a quotation from Sir James Barrie—facts such as their responsibility for the daily delays that passengers experience on the tube.
We shall not support the Conservative motion, but we should have liked to modify the Government's amendment, because it is full of promises but rather silent on solutions. Our proposal for a public interest company backed by earmarked revenues—the key is the source of the revenue—would take the tube into the 21st century. I urge the Government to take on board our proposal.

Mr. Keith Darvill: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate.
I represent Upminster, which is at the start of the District line. As well as being the eastern terminus of the District line, it is the easternmost point of the underground system. Upminster station serves both the underground and the London, Tilbury and Southend line. Many of my constituents who commute into London use the London underground system. A large number of my constituents are employees of London Transport and do a fine job, working at the Cranham depot, which is also in my constituency.
I use the underground myself most days when Parliament is sitting, commuting to Westminster from my home. The underground is an essential part of London

life. It has contributed so much to our great capital city, yet, instead of nurturing it, we have consistently under-invested in it, particularly in recent years, putting at risk that important transport infrastructure.
Transport is essential to London's competitiveness as a world city. It is crucial to the efficiency of business. London needs a safe, affordable and reliable underground as part of an integrated public transport system. It is of critical importance to those who live, work and invest in the capital, as well as for our visitors. Some 2.5 million journeys are made by tube every working day, about half of them by commuters; the others are made by people going to school, shopping or visiting London.
It is not surprising to me that our communities are becoming impatient at the delay in delivering the investment that is so essential. Business groups, such as London First, as well as passenger user groups, such as the London regional passenger committee, recognise the dangers of continual delay.
Most of the criticism is properly directed at the Opposition, who had the audacity to table their critical motion, for it is the Conservatives who are chiefly to blame for the current crisis. The previous Government failed to invest adequately. They failed miserably during their terms in office and left a £1.2 billion investment backlog. They have a deplorable record, particularly if one takes into consideration the investment that was forced on them by the King's Cross disaster in 1987, and the funding of the Jubilee line.
It is not as if the Opposition, when in government, failed to acknowledge by their statements and words what was needed. In a document entitled, "A Transport Strategy for London", published by the Department of Transport in April 1996, the previous Government stated:
Improving the existing London Underground service contributes most directly to our primary goal of promoting the competitiveness of London as a World City.
In the same document, they said:
The priority for London Underground is to improve the quality of the existing network through investment.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: If the hon. Gentleman considers that more money should have gone into the underground over the past 10 years or so, where would he have obtained the funds—from the education budget, the health budget? Or would he have raised taxes?

Mr. Darvill: The Government's proposals, which I shall deal with in the rest of my speech, are quite clear. We have our priorities. Indeed, we have priorities for London Transport, as will be seen.
As I said, the previous Government stated:
The priority for London Underground is to improve the quality of the existing network through investment.
That was true in 1996, and it is true today, for investment is at the heart of the problem. Because of its age, size and intensive use, the underground needs a minimum level of investment year in, year out, to keep pace with wear and tear and to prevent the service from deteriorating.
Under successive Governments, the minimum recognised level of investment has not been reached. Investment is required not only for the future of the London economy but to shift the emphasis away from the car towards a more integrated transport system,


with greater use of public transport. That is, of course, consistent with the Government's approach as detailed in the Green Paper, "New Leadership for London" and the consultation paper, "Developing an Integrated Transport Policy". It is also consistent with the Government's aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposal to create a London Transport authority to deliver the new citywide authority's sustainable transport strategy will flow from the creation of the Greater London authority. Since the abolition of the GLC in 1986, transport planning in London has been carried out by a number of organisations, in the absence of an effective co-ordinating body. Strategic planning has been haphazard and almost non-existent. Transport is increasingly recognised as an acute socio-economic and environmental problem. New organisations have been formed on an ad hoc basis in an attempt to find solutions, resulting in a collection of organisations with no apparent strategic or co-ordinating role.
Integrated transport can be developed and planned effectively only if there is a single co-ordinating body. The multitude of organisations that the Opposition helped to create and sustain could not in a month of Sundays deliver an integrated transport policy. The Government's policies for London, for transport and for the environment are widely welcomed. The Opposition's failure in that respect during their long—many would say too long—administration let down the people and businesses of London and might have been one factor in their punishment by the electorate last May.
Those of us who use the underground regularly witness its underfunding. In many ways, its deterioration is a testament to the previous Government. The new Labour Government must find a way of retaining a publicly owned and accountable underground system, and work in partnership with the private sector to raise the additional investment that is required. We made a manifesto commitment to reject wholesale privatisation and develop a partnership with the private sector.
Progress has been made and I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will soon be able to make an announcement about the precise nature of the public-private partnership that the Government propose, to bring in the resources necessary to provide a modern underground system for 2000 and beyond, which will benefit all Londoners, including my constituents and visitors to London. It follows that the House should reject the Opposition's motion.

Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). We have heard plenty of speeches by hon. Members representing outer London constituencies. I am the first central London Member to speak. I shall be extremely brief.
More underground trains pass under my constituency than under any other in Greater London. In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was very tough on transport Ministers, and I understand his exacerbation. Personally, I feel sympathy for them. The Secretary of State has seen

his Department downsized in standing and the Minister for Transport in London has been given more jobs than is fair, even for a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of her talents. I realise that the decisions were taken elsewhere in Government. I am sorry, too, for the civil servants who have been transferred to the Government office for London, who show some evidence of being overwhelmed by the number of transport initiatives in London with which they are being asked to cope.
The downsizing of the Department and its London interests reflects the Government's attitude towards London, which was also apparent in the recent rate support grant announcements. The consequences, however, fall on Londoners. For example, those in my constituency affected by blight by the projected Chelsea-Hackney line were given to believe a year ago by London Transport that early decisions would be taken to resolve that blight. A year later they are still waiting. The argument for crossrail, which was sharpened by the steadily approaching imminence of the Heathrow express, has been revisited by the crossrail team and transformed by the City corporation's business case for crossrail into a wholly privately funded operation, but the Government office for London still rests on the Montagu report of March 1996.
The Minister of Transport for London is familiar with the problems inherent in Railtrack's tactical plans for Thameslink 2000 in the heart of the capital, involving the closure of the Thameslink Moorgate branch and the diversion of passengers from Blackfriars to Victoria and Elephant and Castle.
The idea that there could be 24 trains per hour, which has never been tested anywhere in Britain for heavy rail, has invited scepticism, and 12-coach trains will be too long for suburban platforms. I gather that it is all part of an integrated policy, but the separate parts must interact.
Seven months ago, in a debate to which other hon. Members have referred, we agreed on the parameters of the problem. The ingredients of the solution were clear, once the Government had gone back on their arteriosclerotic pre-election prejudice against privatisation and shown their willingness to contemplate a private element in London Transport's future.
Seven months ago, in that same debate, I said that London Back Benchers on both sides of the House were willing to work together in the new circumstances to find a solution that Londoners could applaud. I was followed by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who has carried some responsibility for the leadership of London Labour Members. She is not present tonight, and I make no complaint about that. I do not think that, if she were here, she would disagree with my analysis of her speech in that debate as not wholly embracing my invitation. If, on behalf of Londoners, she has faith that the Government will deliver without help from Opposition Members, I only hope that they will get a move on.
Like other hon. Members, I have sensed the impatience of London First, to which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred. London First can, in the eyes of the Government, claim some neutral objectivity after their contribution to the swing towards Labour in the general election by their activity in underground stations during that contest. In the Evening Standard last week, that considerable Londoner, Simon Jenkins, made remarks about the Government's


plans for the London underground that filled me with foreboding. Despite Labour's disclaimer, the Evening Standard has latterly been friendly to the Government.
I recall a Sherlock Holmes story about the underground that involved a corpse and some very complicated technical plans. The name Bruce Partington comes to mind. I shall regard the present vacuum as Operation Bruce Partington until the Government pull themselves together, make some decisions that do not earn the scorn of the Evening Standard, and take action to implement them. I do not currently blame Londoners for losing faith and patience.

Mr. Geraint Davies: The Opposition are scraping the barrel with this dreary motion. What a cheek! After 18 years, we are confronted with this proposition. There was not enough funding for the underground until the horror of the King's Cross fire. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) tore the heart out of the funding for London Transport, and did not provide a strategic framework for the future. This proposition has been cobbled together to fill in time because the Opposition have nothing better to think about.
The future of the London underground should be included in an integrated transport plan for London, and for the economic sustainability of Britain in a global marketplace. That context has been set in the consultation document on an integrated transport plan, which will later emerge as a White Paper. It is important to set London's needs in that wider context.
It is a bit rich that, after 18 years of drift and decay, we have this sudden demand for action. People in the business community, in the Confederation of British Industry, and in London First are getting slightly hot under the collar, but we must get it right. We must bridge the funding gap, and establish a strategically secure footing for the future. That is what the Government are in the midst of doing.
We do not need the fiscal foresight of Old Mother Hubbard showed by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, who generated this crisis. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the accounts of London Underground knows that it needs £400 million a year to stand still on repairs and maintenance, and that there is a £1.25 billion backlog of repairs. The right hon. and learned Member reduced external funding from £373 million to £250 million next year, and to £130 million the year after, while charging to that budget £250 million of Jubilee line costs that should have been outside revenue costs.
All I can say is that it is a good thing that, unlike other transport and underground systems elsewhere in the world, London Transport and London Underground are making positive gross margins—of £225 million this year and next year, and probably £260 million in the following year. The Paris system, for example, makes absolutely no contribution towards overheads.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, in London, passenger volumes are up 7 per cent., to about 860 million passengers. He mentioned also that, this year, annual train kilometres will total 62 million—compared to 52 million in 1993–94—and that, at the turn of the century, they will reach 70 million. Over seven years, therefore—because

of more journeys and a more extensive system—London Underground will have had a 40 per cent. increase in train kilometres. Satisfaction levels also have increased.
Those increases have been achieved despite drains on funding and an unfortunate repair backlog accumulated during the previous Government's time in office. Those matters are set within the wider context of the £420 billion public sector deficit, which is the previous incompetent Government's unfortunate legacy.
Labour Members have listened to the demands of Conservative Members—who studied in the Arthur Daley school of management—for immediate action, although, in 18 years, they did nothing. The Government know which strategic route they must take in achieving a public-private partnership—but the matter is not as simple as saying, "Let's get on with it and let's do it." There must be some caution.
I tell Ministers that we need contract flexibility if we are to guard against unforeseen circumstances. If we have guided buses and a new light rail system, they will have to be integrated into the underground system. Moreover, if we have new technology for road pricing, for example, we will have to ensure that London Underground can absorb the extra volume. Therefore, contracts cannot be over-specified. We must also resist pressure to rush recklessly forwards.
Before the May referendum on a Greater London authority—which will take command of the London underground strategy—the Government will deliver proposals on an accountable modernised and funded system. The Government will deliver those proposals and will make it crystal clear how we will deliver that system. The Opposition will simply have to wait for the good news.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I apologise to the House if I am not as audible as I usually am. When I previously asked the Minister for Transport in London a parliamentary question on the underground, she suggested that I might be suffering from a fever to the brain, but I was not. Today, however, if she were to suggest that I am suffering from a fever to the throat, she would be absolutely right.
A point on which the Minister and I agree concerns a small part of the underground network that is about to be privatised—the Epping-Ongar branch of the Central line. I will not ask her to comment on her decision on that matter, because I fully appreciate that it has yet to be finalised. However, I should like to ask her for an assurance that, whatever decision she takes on the Epping-Ongar line, the land on which that railway lies will be preserved in perpetuity as railway land. I agree with her in wanting to ensure that, should we wish to do so, the opportunity will be available on the Epping-Ongar line to expand the underground system after it has been privatised.
It is becoming obvious that the Government are snookered by a language problem in the controversial underground privatisation. Ministers have said that they do not want to privatise, but they know that it has to be done. The problem is what Ministers will call privatisation when they do it.
The Deputy Prime Minister—for all his life, so far as we know—has opposed privatisation. He opposed every action that the previous Conservative Government took


on privatisation, but he was wrong to do so. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) eloquently explained earlier, there have been a series of very successful privatisations. The problem that the Government are facing is that the Deputy Prime Minister is simply too stubborn to privatise the underground—when we all know that that must be done. He is stuck in the old socialist dogma of state ownership of means of transport. The Government have tacitly admitted that rail privatisation was right. If they are not admitting that it was right, why are they not reversing it, now that they have the power to do so?
Not only was rail privatisation right, but it was brought in speedily and efficiently by the previous Government. The Railways Bill was published within seven months of the 1992 general election. It was a far more complicated piece of legislation than we could expect from the present Government, who are simply delaying and prevaricating. What is right for British Airways, what was right for British Rail, what has brought success and new investment to many companies in the transport sector has been privatisation. If it was right for all those companies, why is not it right for London Underground?
We know that the underground has to be privatised. In the end, it does not really matter what the Government call the privatisation. My constituents simply want them to get on with it.

Mr. John Cryer: I shall be brief—because I have no choice.
The performance of the London underground system over the past few years has been one of the most remarkable of any rail system in the world. Cuts implemented by the previous Government, plus the sheer inconsistency of Government funding, have caused immense problems.
In 1995–96 for instance, core funding to the tube was £350 million. In the following year, it was £359 million, and for 1997–98, it was cut drastically by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—who had half an eye on the Maastricht criteria—to £323 million. That is against the background of a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1991, which put the standard level of funding at—probably£750 million. As a result, there have been unprecedented cuts in staff, for instance. Over the past six years, 25 per cent. of staff have lost their jobs. Funding cuts have led to the abandonment of major and necessary schemes. In my constituency, there are three District line stations. Along with many other projects, the new District line control room, which was desperately needed, has been axed.
The combined pressures have led, as my constituents know very well, to almost daily cancellations and delays, which are inevitable during the downward spiral that the previous Government introduced. During the general election campaign, complaints about public transport—complaints about the tube were most prominent among them—were raised frequently on the doorstep. I suspect that other hon. Members experienced that, too. Many people from Hornchurch who work in the City or the west end, for instance, have to leave for work half an hour or 40 minutes earlier than they should because they have to allow for delays and cancellations.
London Transport's 1996–97 annual report showed a 37 per cent. increase in profits, which were attributed in the report to cost cutting, rising passenger volumes and increases in ticket fares. The tube requires not only higher levels of funding but consistently higher levels of funding. Any senior London Underground manager will tell anybody who asks that one of the big problems is not the cuts but the inconsistency in the previous Government's funding.
Privatisation of the London underground would have meant—and will always mean—a pattern similar to that followed by the railways: worse services, cuts in staffing and services, and demands from private operators for more subsidies. For instance, South West Trains sacked drivers, and then had to cut services, for which it was subsequently fined by the regulator. Connex SouthCentral, which—sadly—I use a lot, tore away layers of managers and supervisors who made the network work. As a result, it started to grind to a halt and was fined for its abysmal record in the final three months of 1977.
The idea that privatisation would provide the required investment in the underground is entirely illusory. The required investment is huge, amounting to probably £7 billion. Any railway system is best and most efficiently run as an integrated network under public ownership. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out on 3 December, the Greater London council ran the tube much better than the Tory Government, which had no belief in—indeed, a considerable contempt for—public services. I look forward to the underground coming under the control of the new Greater London authority and being run with an efficiency and a devotion to public services that were absent from the Conservatives.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: This has been a timely debate, which has, as expected, exposed the Government's uncertainty. They have been in office for nine entertaining months. What have they decided to do about London's underground? Nothing. The delay is becoming an embarrassment.
The Minister of Transport made a remarkable speech. I thought that it was the privilege of the Opposition not to make policy statements. He did not make any. He told us that he would make a statement on the underground, but it came out rather slowly. First, he said that he would set out a solution soon. As he warmed up, he said that he was close to making a decision. Finally, he said that there would be an announcement in March.
In an excellent and thoughtful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said that London Underground cannot rely on the Treasury for funding. The hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Eltham (Mr. Efford) drew attention to the lack of core investment in the underground in the 1980s.

Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: I shall not give way at the moment.
I have a graph showing the investment made by the Conservative Government in the 1980s.

Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: I am replying to the hon. Gentleman's contribution.

Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: I shall not give way.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) said that the debate was a waste of time. She made me wonder why she was here.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) gave us the usual Liberal coalition speech—or at least I thought that he was starting off down that route. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) gallantly declined to describe the Minister for Transport in London as a monkey. I felt that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington was a cloned monkey, although I could not come up with a better name for him than a Dolly monkey.

Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: I shall not give way. I am replying to the hon. Gentleman's contribution. He displayed his—

Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for an hon. Member to refuse to give way to another hon. Member whom he has named?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Regardless of whether it is appropriate, it is not a matter of order.

Mr. Ottaway: We can show our usual contempt for bogus points of order.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said in June that the Liberal Democrats were showing their anti-car credentials by proposing congestion charges and parking charges. I am sure that that will reinforce support for them in outer London.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) urged the Government to get a move on and spoke about Thameslink 2000, which is an important project. It has led to dispute between the Corporation of London and Railtrack, which he and I ought to stay out of.
My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), who seems to have left the Chamber already, said that we had to get it right, and that secure funding was needed. He also implied that the Labour Government would introduce road pricing. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) rightly drew attention to the success of privatisation.
The Deputy Prime Minister has been described as the Pooh-Bah of the Blair Government. He is in charge of everything. When not abolishing the green belt or setting up regional commissars, he is responsible for London Transport. That is precisely the problem that his Department faces. He is simply too busy deciding which

bit of green belt to carve up next, when he should be channelling all his formidable talents into taking a firm decision on the future of London's underground.
It is a sad reflection on the Government's sense of priorities that they will not put the issue higher up the political agenda. They cannot do that, because the Deputy Prime Minister is at loggerheads over privatisation not only with the Chancellor of the Exchequer but with the Prime Minister. To make matters worse, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are also at loggerheads with each other. After all, why should the Deputy Prime Minister work with someone whom No. 10 has described as "psychologically flawed"?
Instead, the proposal that the Minister of Transport says will come out in March, when the Government eventually announce it, will be a compromise—a compromise to keep the peace between the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister, a compromise designed not to rock the boat. It will be a compromise for short-term expediency, designed to keep the Cabinet and the rest of the Labour party quiet. It will have nothing to do with the long-term needs of the underground.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster drew the attention of the House to an article in Friday's Evening Standard by the excellent columnist Simon Jenkins, who has sometimes been rather critical of the Conservative party. Mr. Jenkins wrote:
they should privatise by simply floating the Tube, lock, stop and barrel, on the Stock Market … flotation as a single business is better than hacking the Tube system up, down and sideways merely to appease some slaves to outdated ideology".
He was absolutely right.
Our case is that privatisation of the underground is the best way to raise the necessary funds for investment. There is now no argument about the fact that privatisation is a fundamental philosophy accepted by all political parties not only in this country but in the rest of the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said, privatisation is the only way to ensure that the underground gets the money that it so badly needs.
We should plough the proceeds raised by the sale back into the tube system and give London Underground the early injection of cash that it so badly needs. We should also keep through-ticketing and travel cards.
There is no question raised, even by the Labour party, about the possibility of either party reversing any of the privatisations that have taken place since 1979. Gone are the days when the present Secretary of State for Scotland predicted, for example, that British Airways would be the "pantomime horse of capitalism", if it was anything at all. Even the right hon. Gentleman would now concede that he was wrong, and if anyone looks like the pantomime horse of capitalism now, it is him. British Airways is a world beater and the whole House will admit that the right hon. Gentleman's approach was wrong.

Mr. Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: I shall not give way.
Despite having been wrong before, the Government have made it emphatically clear that they oppose wholesale privatisation. In the run-up to the general election, the Labour party rejected outright any suggestion of privatisation and argued that public-private


partnerships were the way forward. The approach has evolved piecemeal, and shows a strong commitment to the public part of the public-private partnerships.
Back in March 1996, the then Opposition were busy attacking private finance initiatives. The present Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, who was then Labour transport spokesman, said:
All the experience of the PFI so far shows that public-private partnerships happen only when the ultimate commitment to the project remains in the public sector".
The present Minister for Transport in London, later in the same debate, said:
The PFI, as devised and structured by the Government, is the Government's way of opening the back door to privatising a service which I believe must remain in the public sector".—[Official Report, 13 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 1013–48.]
There we have the PFI eliminated and a strong commitment to public-private partnership in the public sector; but what on earth does it mean? Can anyone in the House give me a clear definition of a public-private partnership in the public sector? The Treasury website says that PPPs are all about negotiating deals that are good for both sides. On that definition, contracting out a hospital's laundry service is a public-private partnership. Would hiring a private security firm to protect Government property be a public-private partnership?
There is nothing wrong with those views except that, in defining a specific policy for the future of the underground, it is fairly meaningless to those of us who are trying to understand the implications. So confident were Ministers in their quotations and remarks that it was safe to assume that they knew what they meant.
In February 1997, in response to our proposals to privatise London Underground, the then shadow Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), said:
Would it not be far better to get moving straight away with public-private partnerships as Labour has proposed?"—[Official Report, 25 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 153.]
Nothing could be clearer than the words, "get moving straight away". Labour knew what it was doing, where it wanted to go and how it intended to achieve its objectives.
Full of conviction, the Labour manifesto said:
Labour plans a new public-private partnership to improve the Underground.
Now we know the truth: Labour had no more idea of what a public-private partnership was than we did. The situation is now becoming a farce.
Ministers met the chairman of London Transport only three days after the general election, which suggested that the issue was being taken seriously, and in July management consultants were commissioned to consider the future of the network; but then the hesitation set in. The Deputy Prime Minister left some documents lying around the "Panorama" studio that made it clear that privatisation was under consideration.
Then Treasury stuck its oar in: in October, the Financial Times reported:
A senior Government Minister has said that Mr Brown has refused the use of public funds for the investment programme. But as Labour's manifesto precludes only 'wholesale privatisation', the Chancellor is believed to favour a majority stake.

Then the Prime Minister joined in: again the Financial Times reported the leaks coming out of No. 10. It said:
close associates of the Prime Minister and Chancellor are convinced a majority stake in LU's network or infrastructure has to be sold to the private sector if the investment is to be made.
Then the Deputy Prime Minister struck back: his spin doctors went to work and a further report in the Financial Times said:
ministers were yesterday talking about the infrastructure business as a private/public partnership, with the private sector having the upper hand".
That is interesting. Whatever happened to the line from the Minister and from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that the service must stay in the public sector?
Then we had the ultimate spin. The arbiter of the dispute, the Paymaster General, who is responsible for public-private partnerships, among other things, has been advised, according to The Independent, to
split the Underground infrastructure into three companies and franchise them and the train operators—such as the Victoria line—to the private sector.
Unbelievably, the Paymaster General's compromise seems to have the upper hand. The latest leaks were reported in the Evening Standard at the end of last week. It said:
The plan is likely to see the Underground's infrastructure—tracks, tunnels and stations—split into two or three parts and auctioned off on leases of up to 30 years … The operation of the services, however, would remain in public sector hands with heavily unionised staff likely to remain as public employees.
If that is true, it at least explains one thing: at last October's Labour party conference in Brighton, the Deputy Prime Minister saw off moves to renationalise Railtrack, but the price was to concede a motion to the transport unions that stated:
the conference is totally opposed to the introduction of private capital which would lead to private companies owning and/or operating parts of London Underground.
The problem with that proposal is that the money needed to overhaul the underground network would absorb most of the income from tickets, leaving nothing for profits. As the Evening Standard said:
This is the fundamental problem which we always return to in terms of getting private investors involved to fund investment in an operation which barely breaks even.
That says it all. The Government do not know whom to upset—the public or the trade unions. The Deputy Prime Minister began his article in The Times yesterday boldly, saying
when we say as a Labour Government that we won't run away from difficult decisions, we mean it.
Some of us would be only too pleased if he made any decision—even if he did not mean it—to progress the debate and to get things rolling.
The Government were elected on a promise that
things can only get better.
For London Underground, things have only got worse. All the Government have offered tube users since the election are inflationary fare rises and delay, delay, delay. I believe that London deserves better than that, and I commend the motion to the House.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): The Leader of the Opposition will be deeply depressed if he takes the trouble to read this evening's debate. Despite the energy that he has reportedly put into castigating his party and highlighting, for its benefit, the reasons why it was so lamentable in government, why it was so crushingly defeated at the most recent general election and why it has signally failed to organise itself into any form of effective Opposition—based on overweening arrogance and a failure to listen—his message clearly has not penetrated to those Opposition Members in the Chamber tonight.
The Opposition's contribution ended as it began. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—like, indeed, all Tory Members—based his speech on two simple arguments. The first was that this Government have lamentably failed to deal with the difficulties facing London Underground in the nine months that we have been in government. The previous 18 years, when the Conservative party had stewardship of London Underground—which saw the Conservatives' total failure to take the needs of London and Londoners seriously and their failure to invest in the core funding of London Underground— were dismissed and sidelined.
The second argument is that our apparent inaction has been highlighted by the fact that we have not produced what the Conservatives believe is still the only answer to the problems of the underground—privatisation. They have made much play of underlining the value of privatisation, but did not mention the damage that they inflicted on the integrated railway system in this country by that very process.
If one had listened closely to some Opposition speeches—it was, on occasion, extremely difficult so to do, because of the paucity of the contributions from Opposition Members—one might have believed that rail privatisation was up and running and effective in a period infinitely less than the nine months that this party has been in government, during which time Opposition Members believe that we should have brought into being a policy which we have consistently stated—publicly, privately and in our manifestos—is not the way we believe that the problems of the underground can be tackled and solved—the policy of privatisation.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield underlined his accusation of inaction on the part of the present Government by referring to the incorporation of the Department of Transport into the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I should point out to the House that, when the Conservative party was in government, the only sign of action from the Department of Transport was the annual changing of the Secretary of State. It was not pass the parcel, but pass the brief. As is to be expected, there were some excellent contributions by my hon. Friends, not least because so many of them are lifelong users of the underground.
In an excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) said that she and her husband chose their domicile because of its close proximity to an underground station. She highlighted her experience, during the 18 years of Conservative misrule, of the deterioration of a service that is so important to London and to Londoners. That argument was made—in their individual ways—by the hon. Member for

Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer).
I say to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), regarding the line that she mentioned, that, as yet, my consent has not been sought for the proposed sale. I am delighted that she is as keen as we are to ensure that railway land is preserved. She obviously believes, as do Labour Members, that the expansion of the railways is vital for a properly integrated public transport system, which the Government intend to introduce.
However, we must not forget why the underground is in its current position, which made it necessary for the House to debate its future tonight. As I have said, and as many hon. Members have said, it is due in no small part to the underfunding that characterised the years when the Conservatives were in government.
The 1996 Budget, combined with cost overruns on the Jubilee line extension, was a disaster for the underground's finances. It meant that about half the money that London Underground was planning to invest in the existing network during the next three years was no longer available to them. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said, the amount of core funding in London Underground when the Conservative party left office was precisely the same as it had been when it took office, almost 20 years earlier.
London Transport has actually managed to increase its operating surplus for each of the past seven years, so that more than £200 million a year of its resources now goes towards investment in the underground. Therefore, obviously we need look no further than the Conservative party for the underground's current funding crisis—and the Conservatives have the temerity to say that we are being too slow in finding a solution to the problem that they created.
The Government believe that there is no alternative to a well-funded, efficient underground system for London. About 800 million underground journeys are made each year, more than 700,000 of which take place during the morning peak on each working day. The underground is vital to the economic well-being of London and to the quality of life of people who live in and around London. One of the interesting trends in recent years has been the growth in the use of the underground during the inter-peak periods, in the evenings and at weekends, and we want that trend to continue. Surface rail, despite the depredations of privatisation, is vital.
South of the river, London is very poorly served by the tube. The bus is often unfairly regarded as the Cinderella of public transport, but the number of bus journeys made in London each year easily exceeds the number of tube journeys—by about half as much again—and we believe that it is vital that more people are attracted to using that mode of transport, because it is cheap and especially flexible.
However, despite investment with the aim of providing one of the most comprehensive and efficient metropolitan bus networks in the world, bus travel will always have limitations, especially for commuter journeys into central London, and even with the best bus network, an efficient, reliable tube network is essential for existing users and for future growth in patronage.
Therefore, the Government recognise the importance of the underground for London, and we are determined to address its investment needs so that it can play its full part in a properly integrated public transport network for this great capital city. We are determined to improve the quality of the underground as quickly as possible by a public-private partnership.
We want to find practical solutions to the underground's problems, and to modernise its key assets such as track, signalling, bridges and embankments. Because of the links between those assets, the network may be improved significantly only by tackling them all together.
The aim is to secure an affordable, reliable, clean and modern network. We are making progress on that work as a matter of urgency, given the level of funding available to London Underground, which we inherited from the previous Government.
I cannot tell the House today our detailed plans for the future of the London Underground, but I can say something about the principles that are guiding our thinking.
First, it should go without saying that safety is of paramount concern. In the 10 years since the tragedy of the King's Cross fire, when 31 people died, safety on the underground has improved dramatically. The risk of fires and flooding in particular are now greatly reduced, and a number of projects are currently aimed at improving other areas of safety, most notably trying to reduce the risk of accidents when people are getting on and off trains. It is right that we should pay tribute to London Underground's management and staff who deserve a great deal of credit for those improvements.
I can assure the House that safety will remain the top priority under a public-private partnership. The Health and Safety Commission is being fully consulted as we develop our plans. The option we choose will ensure that safety standards on the underground are maintained, and the commission's advice will be sought on the safety regime that will be required to ensure that that commitment is put into practice.
We also want to safeguard the core public responsibilities of the underground. We are not in the business of wholesale privatisation—that was the dogmatic approach of the Conservative party, and much good it did it, the tube and London. As our manifesto said:
The Conservative plan for the wholesale privatisation of London Underground is not the answer. It would be a poor deal for passenger and taxpayer alike … Labour plans a new public-private partnership to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers.
A public-private partnership for the underground is particularly appropriate. The first underground railway in the world started operating when the Metropolitan Railway opened a line between Paddington and Farringdon in 1863. That line, and much of the current London underground network, was developed by private enterprise. But in 1933, the underground came under public ownership, with the creation of the London Passenger Transport Board, popularly known as London Transport. The network then enjoyed another period of expansion, and it was under public ownership that many of the features of the underground that

passengers value were first developed—the underground map, the logo, the fully integrated ticketing system and the travelcard.
We want to build on the best elements of private sector enterprise and the public sector service ethos. The way to do that is through a public-private partnership.
I have already referred to the investment backlog on the existing underground network which London Underground estimates at £1.2 billion and rising rapidly. London Underground also estimates that, simply to stop the network deteriorating further, it needs to spend on average more than £350 million a year. Quite simply, there is no way in which the public sector can afford those sums and modernise the network in anything like a reasonable period, so we must consider ways of bringing in private sector money.
If we can bring private sector ideas and innovation as well, without cutting corners or compromising quality of service, we will do that, too. London underground is already one of the most efficient public transport systems in the world. I acknowledge the efforts of the management and staff in achieving that. But if we can promote even greater efficiency in the underground, and ensure even better value for money, we shall do so.
However, we must never forget that the London underground is a public service and must be publicly accountable. We are mindful of the need to safeguard a real role for the mayor of London and assembly which, subject to the referendum which should take place in May, we hope will be elected in 2000.
That does not mean that we shall leave Londoners waiting for the next two years and more before the underground's problems are addressed. London deserves better than that. Subject to the outcome of the referendum, we shall introduce a Bill in the autumn to establish the Greater London authority. That Bill will make London Transport more accountable to the people of London and will include the provisions necessary to enable a public-private partnership for London Underground to be implemented.
In the meantime, we believe that, for all the options that we are now considering, it would be possible for London Underground to make substantial progress in implementing a public-private partnership.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 345.

Division No. 140]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Ballard, Mrs Jackie


Allan, Richard
Beggs, Roy


Amess, David
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bercow, John


Arbuthnot, James
Beresford, Sir Paul


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Body, Sir Richard


Baker, Norman
Boswell, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)





Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brady, Graham
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brake, Tom
Kirkwood, Archy


Brand, Dr Peter
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brazier, Julian
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Breed, Colin
Lansley, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Leigh, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lidington, David


Burns, Simon
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Burstow, Paul
Livsey, Richard


Cable, Dr Vincent
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Loughton, Tim


Chidgey, David
Luff, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clappison, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
MacKay, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maclean, Rt Hon David



McLoughlin, Patrick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Madel, Sir David


Collins, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Cotter, Brian
Maples, John


Cran, James
Mates, Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Dafis, Cynog
May, Mrs Theresa


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moore, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Duncan, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Norman, Archie


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Öpik, Lembit


Evans, Nigel
Ottaway, Richard


Faber, David
Page, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Prior, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Randall, John


Flight, Howard
Rendel, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robathan, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Fox, Dr Liam
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fraser, Christopher
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gale, Roger
Ruffley, David


Garnier, Edward
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
St Aubyn, Nick


Gibb, Nick
Sanders, Adrian


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Sayeed, Jonathan


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Shepherd, Richard


Gorrie, Donald
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Green, Damian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Greenway, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Grieve, Dominic
Soames, Nicholas


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hague, Rt Hon William
Spring, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hammond, Philip
Steen, Anthony


Harris, Dr Evan
Streeter, Gary


Hawkins, Nick
Stunell, Andrew


Hayes, John
Swayne, Desmond


Heald, Oliver
Syms, Robert


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Horam, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, William


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Tyler, Paul


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tyrie, Andrew



Viggers, Peter


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wallace, James


Keetch, Paul
Wardle, Charles


Key, Robert
Waterson, Nigel






Webb, Steve
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Wells, Bowen
Woodward, Shaun


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Willis, Phil
Mr. Stephen Day and


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. John Whittingdale.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)



Alexander, Douglas
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Darvill, Keith


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Davidson, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Atkins, Charlotte
Dawson, Hilton


Austin, John
Denham, John


Barron, Kevin
Dismore, Andrew


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dobbin, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Donohoe, Brian H


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Doran, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Drew, David


Benton, Joe
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bermingham, Gerald
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Berry, Roger
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Best, Harold
Edwards, Huw


Betts, Clive
Efford, Clive


Blears, Ms Hazel
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blizzard, Bob
Ennis, Jeff


Boateng, Paul
Fatchett, Derek


Borrow, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Follett, Barbara


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek



Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Galloway, George


Browne, Desmond
Gardiner, Barry


Buck, Ms Karen
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burgon, Colin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Butler, Mrs Christine
Godman, Norman A


Byers, Stephen
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grant, Bernie


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caton, Martin
Grocott, Bruce


Cawsey, Ian
Grogan, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hain, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Healey, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoey, Kate


Cooper, Yvette
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Hope, Phil


Cousins, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cranston, Ross
Howells, Dr Kim


Crausby, David
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Humble, Mrs Joan





Hurst, Alan
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hutton, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pearson, Ian


Illsley, Eric
Perham, Ms Linda


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pickthall, Colin


Jamieson, David
Pike, Peter L


Jenkins, Brian
Plaskitt, James


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pollard, Kerry


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pond, Chris



Pope, Greg


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keeble, Ms Sally
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Khabra, Piara S
Quinn, Lawrie


Kidney, David
Radice, Giles


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen



Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Laxton, Bob
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lepper, David
Rogers, Allan


Leslie, Christopher
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruane, Chris


Lock, David
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Love, Andrew
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McAvoy, Thomas
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCabe, Steve
Salter, Martin


McDonagh, Siobhain
Savidge, Malcolm


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonnell, John
Sheerman, Barry


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McIsaac, Shona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Singh, Marsha


McLeish, Henry
Skinner, Dennis


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mallaber, Judy
Soley, Clive


Mandelson, Peter
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marek, Dr John
Spellar, John


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stevenson, George


Maxton, John
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Meale, Alan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Merron, Gillian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Michael, Alun
Stoate, Dr Howard


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Milburn, Alan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Miller, Andrew
Stringer, Graham


Mitchell, Austin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moran, Ms Margaret



Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mountford, Kali
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mudie, George
Timms, Stephen


Mullin, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Trickett, Jon


Norris, Dan
Truswell, Paul


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


O'Neill, Martin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)






Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wilson, Brian


Walley, Ms Joan
Winnick, David


Ward, Ms Claire
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Wareing, Robert N
Wise, Audrey


Watts, David
Wood, Mike


White, Brian
Woolas, Phil


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Worthington, Tony


Williams Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wyatt, Derek



Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Mr. David Clelland.

Division No. 141]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Body, Sir Richard


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brady, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brazier, Julian


Beggs, Roy
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Browning, Mrs Angela


Beresford, Sir Paul
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)






Burns, Simon
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Madel, Sir David


Clappison, James
Maginnis, Ken


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Malins, Humfrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maples, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mates, Michael



Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
May, Mrs Theresa


Collins, Tim
Moss, Malcolm


Cran, James
Norman, Archie


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Ottaway, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Page, Richard


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Prior, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Randall, John


Duncan, Alan
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robathan, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Evans, Nigel
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Faber, David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Flight, Howard
Ruffley, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
St Aubyn, Nick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fox, Dr Liam
Shepherd, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gale, Roger
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Garnier, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Gibb, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spring, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Green, Damian
Steen, Anthony


Greenway, John
Streeter, Gary


Grieve, Dominic
Swayne, Desmond


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Syms, Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Thompson, William


Horam, John
Tredinnick, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Trend, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Jenkin, Bernard
Tyrie, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter



Wardle, Charles


Key, Robert
Waterson, Nigel


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wells, Bowen


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Whittingdale, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lansley, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Leigh, Edward
Willetts, David


Letwin, Oliver
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lidington, David
Woodward, Shaun


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Yeo, Tim


Loughton, Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Luff, Peter



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Mr. Oliver Heald and


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mr. Stephen Day.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Baker, Norman


Ainger, Nick
Ballard, Mrs Jackie


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Banks, Tony


Alexander, Douglas
Barnes, Harry


Allan, Richard
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Begg, Miss Anne


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Ashton, Joe
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Atkins, Charlotte
Benton, Joe


Austin, John
Bermingham, Gerald





Berry, Roger
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Best, Harold
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Betts, Clive
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Edwards, Huw


Blizzard, Bob
Efford, Clive


Boateng, Paul
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Borrow, David
Ennis, Jeff


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bradshaw, Ben
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brake, Tom
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Follett, Barbara


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Buck, Ms Karen
Foulkes, George


Burden, Richard
Galloway, George


Burgon, Colin
Gardiner, Barry


Burnett, John
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burstow, Paul
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Butler, Mrs Christine
Godman, Norman A


Byers, Stephen
Godsiff, Roger


Cable, Dr Vincent
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gorrie, Donald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grant, Bernie


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Casale, Roger
Grocott, Bruce


Caton, Martin
Grogan, John


Cawsey, Ian
Hain, Peter


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chidgey, David
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Church, Ms Judith
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Healey, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clelland, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clwyd, Ann
Heppell, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Colman, Tony
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoey, Kate


Cooper, Yvette
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hope, Phil


Corston, Ms Jean
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cotter, Brian
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cranston, Ross
Howells, Dr Kim


Crausby, David
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)



Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hurst, Alan


Dafis, Cynog
Hutton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Illsley, Eric


Darvill, Keith
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davidson, Ian
Jenkins, Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)



Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Denham, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Doran, Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Drew, David
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)






Khabra, Piara S
Pope, Greg


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Powell, Sir Raymond


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kirkwood, Archy
Primarolo, Dawn


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Purchase, Ken


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Quin, Ms Joyce


Laxton, Bob
Quinn, Lawrie


Lepper, David
Radice, Giles


Leslie, Christopher
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Livingstone, Ken
Rendel, David


Livsey, Richard
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)



Lock, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Love, Andrew
Rogers, Allan


McAllion, John
Rooker, Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


McCabe, Steve
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Rowlands, Ted


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruane, Chris


Macdonald, Calum
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McDonnell, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McFall, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ryan, Ms Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Salter, Martin


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sanders, Adrian


McLeish, Henry
Savidge, Malcolm


McNulty, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sheerman, Barry


McWalter, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mallaber, Judy
Singh, Marsha


Mandelson, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Maxton, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Merron, Gillian
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michael, Alun
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Steinberg, Gerry


Milburn, Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moore, Michael
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morley, Elliot
Stringer, Graham


Mountford, Kali
Stunell, Andrew


Mudie, George
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Norris, Dan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Olner, Bill
Timms, Stephen


O'Neill, Martin
Tipping, Paddy


Öpik, Lembit
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Touhig, Don


Palmer, Dr Nick
Trickett, Jon


Pearson, Ian
Truswell, Paul


Perham, Ms Linda
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Plaskitt, James
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pollard, Kerry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pond, Chris
Tyler, Paul





Wallace, James
Willis, Phil


Walley, Ms Joan
Wilson, Brian


Ward, Ms Claire
Winnick, David


Wareing, Robert N
Wise, Audrey


Watts, David
Wood, Mike


Webb, Steve
Woolas, Phil


White, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)




Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Mr. Graham Allen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House wants to see a modern, efficient, affordable and reliable Underground system, worthy of the people of London, and accountable to the people of London; deplores the substantial investment backlog in the London Underground which this Government inherited from the previous administration; applauds the Government's rejection of the wholesale privatisation of the London Underground, as proposed by the previous Government; and welcomes the Government's action to explore options for a public-private partnership for the London Underground, which will safeguard its commitment to the public interest, guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers, and secure the resources necessary to ensure Londoners and visitors to the capital city have the modern Underground system they deserve.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Azerbaijan) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and Georgia) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Armenia) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Uzbekistan) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, and the Republic of Slovenia) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.—[Mr. McFall.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

School Merger (York)

Miss Anne McIntosh: I wish to present a petition from the parents and supporters of Canon Lee school, concerning a proposed merger with Queen Anne school on a split site. The schools would be a mile and a half from each other. The petition has 1,604 signatures.
The petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Employment not to approve the proposal to merge Canon Lee school and Queen Anne school on a split site, but instead to recommend that the local education authority look again at the LEA development plan to include a review of all secondary education provision in York.
To lie upon the Table.

Insurance Premium Tax

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this important issue.
Insurance premium tax was first introduced in the Finance Act 1994, and is payable on insurance premiums in the United Kingdom. The Finance Act 1997 made a number of changes to IPT—they were claimed at the time to be anti-avoidance measures—which introduced a higher rate of 17.5 per cent. for a range of insurance services where insurance was provided in conjunction with other goods or services.
The introduction of that higher rate was described by the last Administration as a measure to counter alleged VAT avoidance in the form of "value shifting" on a limited range of insurances sold with goods and services. Tax avoidance was allegedly taking place through the inflation of the value of the insurance element, which was charged at the old IPT rate of 2.5 per cent. rather than being liable to VAT at 17.5 per cent. The three main areas affected by the new higher rate were insurance relating to motor vehicles, insurance relating to domestic appliances and travel insurance.
Compelling legal evidence suggests that the higher-rate IPT, as currently constituted, is in breach of European law. I should stress that I have no sympathy for the tax dodgers who provoked the over-reaction of an increase in the rate. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will acknowledge that, as many of the arguments that I shall advance were deployed by her when she was an Opposition spokesperson during the Committee stage of last year's Finance Bill. On 6 February 1997, she spoke at some length about the introduction of higher-rate IPT. She asked:
Why have the Government taken a broad-brush approach that is likely to catch innocent commercial interests?
Is the Financial Secretary still concerned about the fact that innocents have been hit by what she herself described as a broad-brush approach? I hope to show that many of the "innocent commercial interests" to which she referred in her speech last year have been hit. Higher-rate IPT has had a significant impact on the travel industry—the industry which the Financial Secretary herself suggested last year was least guilty, and which to my mind is largely innocent, of the so-called value shifting. Will the Financial Secretary tell us what she has discovered over the past year that persuades her that value shifting has occurred in respect of travel insurance? Will she comment on the following points?
I understand that, because the travel service is either zero rated or part of the tour operators' margin scheme whereby a profit margin is calculated and subject to VAT according to specific regulations, value shifting is, in effect, not possible. When no VAT is due on travel services, where does the value shifting, or tax loss, arise? As the Financial Secretary said last year:
Customs receives VAT on the margin on the holiday from the tour operator—on the full selling value of the holiday—irrespective of the discount given by the travel agent … It is difficult to see how value shifting could take place if the full value of VAT, at 17.5 per cent., was paid on the holiday irrespective of the discount.


What is the Financial Secretary's view on that now, given that last year she described the examples used by the previous Government to justify the imposition of higher rate IPT on the travel industry as
not a description of value shifting in the travel industry, but of over-priced insurance"?
That analysis has also been justified by the recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on package holidays, which suggested that heavy discounts for holidays and the low cost of package deals was to do with the highly competitive nature of the travel sector, and nothing to do with a surreptitious attempt at value shifting. Is the Minister aware of those MMC findings? I suggest that they blow a hole in the Government's argument.
In the run-up to this evening's debate, I spoke to a number of ordinary travel agents and travel operators, who were clear about the impact of the policy on their business. With respect to travel insurance, the introduction of IPT has resulted in a distortion of the market. Over the past few years, travel agents have been steadily losing market share in this area. Since the introduction of higher rate IPT, that decline has trebled. Last year alone, there was a 33 per cent. fall in market share for travel agents.
Not all that lost business, however, is going to competitors. A significant number of people are now simply not taking out travel insurance. It has been reliably assessed that before the introduction of IPT, about one in 25 holiday-makers travelled abroad without travel insurance. Now that figure is nearer to one in 10. That information comes from a survey of holiday-makers and is compelling evidence of an IPT-related problem that the Minister herself raised last year.
The present Financial Secretary said:
I am worried that in trying to raise revenue from an ill-targeted piece of legislation towards the travel agents, the Government may lose money elsewhere. There is a danger that people may start travelling abroad without adequate insurance cover …
At present, it costs British consuls £200 million a year to underwrite drivers who get into difficulty while on holiday and who are not adequately insured. If more tourists slip through the insurance net, that is likely to affect the budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which will have to bail out uninsured tourists.
The Minister will also be aware that travel agencies, particularly small independents, operate with tiny profit margins of between 1 and 2 per cent. Holiday insurance was always one of the most profitable elements of their business. That insurance business has now been cut by about a third in the past year alone, with a devastating impact on general profitability.
I have received representations from travel agents who point out that the only reason that their businesses survived this year was the increased spending on holidays as a result of the windfall payments from building society share issues. That factor will not be in place next year, and they predict confidently but without any pleasure that many small travel agents will go to the wall.
Clearly, the impact does not fall solely on the travel sector. In terms of lost contracts, bankruptcies and job losses, the clearest indications so far have come from electrical retailers.
During the Committee stage of the Finance Bill last year, the Tory Government insisted that there was clear evidence of value shifting from the rental sector, among others. The present Financial Secretary queried that assertion. She said:
A television or video's rental cost comprises two parts: the rental of the appliance and a maintenance charge. The charge is usually split, and it is explained to the customer that the total charge is made up of two parts. The Minister read out a letter written in … 1994, which showed that the companies reversed the rental and insurance proportions. He said that that was value shifting …
The companies' argument is that first, in 1992, they successfully won a VAT tribunal on the issue. Following that tribunal, they reassessed their business. The cost of buying appliances such as videos or televisions is becoming relatively cheaper because of competition and technology, and so, therefore, is rental. But the cost of labour … has increased and it is included in the insurance part of the rental charge.
The companies would regard that as a legitimate business reassessment, and the Minister made the point for them in last year's debate.
The strength of that argument has been confirmed by another Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of domestic electrical goods. The findings debunk the Government's claims of tax avoidance in both the rental and sales sectors. The MMC's findings have been accepted in their entirety by the President of the Board of Trade.
The MMC report claimed that the price of electrical goods was being kept artificially high and that real costs had fallen dramatically. Therefore, the decision of the rental companies to keep the commodity rental element of their packages low is in line with what the MMC said should be the position.
With regard to sale warranties, the Government's argument, in contrast, for the introduction of higher rate IPT was that transfer pricing was taking place from lowly priced but high-taxed goods to high-priced but low-taxed warranties. They were stating that retail prices for electrical goods were being kept artificially low, in direct contrast to the MMC and the Department of Trade and Industry, which now state that they are being kept artificially high.
The MMC further found that there was little price difference between suppliers selling their own warranties and those who were not, so what evidence is there for price shifting? What justification is there for higher rate IPT on this sector in the light of the MMC report? I suggest that there is none. While IPT remains in place, businesses are suffering enormous losses and jobs are once again being lost.
Thorn and Granada were the examples given by the Financial Secretary last year. Between them, they have lost in the region of £20 million in business and around 800 jobs across the country. They are subject to aggressive marketing from direct insurers, who point out the tax disadvantage of purchasing a warranty through either of those companies. Their market share has fallen.
The Government cannot have it both ways. Electrical retailers cannot be guilty of both price shifting and artificially raising prices. Has the Financial Secretary spoken to the DTI about the MMC's findings? Surely that report invalidates the Government's justification for higher rate IPT.
The Minister will also be aware of the impact of IPT on motor vehicle traders. The discriminatory tax applies to maintenance insurance, which has all the accompanying


benefits of statutory regulation and policing that go with any insurance policy, while vendors' warranties are not taxed and have no backup should the vendor go out of business. There is now a trend towards the use of less-reliably backed but tax-free warranties, with the result that more and more costs are being borne by vehicle purchasers when they find that they are without adequate cover. The consumer is losing out as a result of the tax.
If the Minister remains unmoved by the personal and business impact of the higher rate IPT, perhaps the Government's mind will be focused by some of the legal arguments that strongly suggest that the current structure of IPT is in breach of European law in a number of areas. I am grateful to Messrs. Waelbroeck and Malherbe, who are European tax law experts, for their advice in this complex area. I believe the Minister has had an opportunity to review their opinion.
On reading the Waelbroeck report, hon. Members will see that higher rate IPT offends European law in relation to VAT, competition law and the freedom to provide services. I urge the Minister to review the full detail of that report on these points.
There are some solutions to these problems. My first suggestion to the Minister would be a meeting between herself and key figures in the industries affected. This morning, I met some senior representatives of a number of leading companies and trade bodies. I will be happy bring a delegation of representatives, not just from the travel sector but from all the sectors affected, to meet her.
My second suggestion concerns extra-statutory concessions. I believe that such concessions have already been agreed with a small number of insurers. Will the Minister consider extending these concessions at least to cover groups where there is no evidence of value shifting? If not, will she explain why concessions are being offered in what appears to be a fairly makeshift manner?
Ideally, this matter should be resolved through primary legislation, not piecemeal concessions. In that regard, my third suggestion to the Minister would be a general tax avoidance measure in the forthcoming Budget. All along the Government have assured us that higher rate IPT was designed to catch the tax cheats. I have made it clear in my speech that the method chosen has had a wider effect in terms of distortion of the market, and a direct effect on ordinary people, through redundancies and closures.
Tax avoidance measures can be introduced without these unpalatable side effects. I urge the Minister to follow that route rather than continuing to penalise a limited number of sectors through IPT.
My final suggestion to the Minister is the most important, and again it is one that she suggested last year. She asked:
Why did the Government choose to tackle the problem with a two-rate IPT? Why did they not use other routes, such as a flat-rate"?—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee B, 6 February 1997; c. 177–82.]
At that time, the Minister argued for an increased flat rate. She should—and indeed must—introduce a level playing field in the insurance market.
Higher rate insurance premium tax is a tax gone wrong. I hope that the Government will take note of my representations and return to a flat, non-punitive rate of insurance premium tax for all sections of the insurance industry. How can it be right that a customer can go into

a travel agent, a television rental shop or a garage and be offered insurance at 17.5 per cent. tax and then go next door to an insurance broker and get the same cover at 4 per cent. tax?
Higher rate IPT is a barrier to fair competition; it causes hardship and job losses and I urge the Minister to act now.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) on his speech, particularly the excellent parts where he quoted me. Never has an Adjournment debate included so many excellent quotations from a Minister when in opposition, so I congratulate myself on that.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of important points. As his speech demonstrated—when he repeated my words back to me—I fully understand and appreciate the concerns that he expressed. In addressing those concerns, I should like to explain the Government's approach to the issue, on which there is a continuing debate.
First, the central issue is tax avoidance, on which the hon. Gentleman expressed his view clearly. The term tax avoidance does not necessarily imply that the gaining of a tax advantage was the prime motive for the way in which the travel industry, for example, chose to arrange its business, although that is undoubtedly the case in some respects. There may well be commercial, non-tax reasons for the emphasis on insurance sales. However, the Government have the right to address the adverse effect of those trading arrangements. The higher rate of insurance premium tax does just that. It does not prevent any trader from undertaking what may be a common commercial practice. It simply removes the tax incentive and ensures that the Exchequer does not suffer.
Secondly, the common practice by travel agents of offering discounted holidays conditional on the sale of their own travel insurance is often cited as a reason for applying the higher rate of IPT to the travel industry. That is not so. Discounting of holidays has no effect on the tax take, as tour operators account for the tax on the undiscounted price of the holiday.
As in the other sectors affected, the issue behind the introduction of the higher rate is simply one of disproportionate margins. Even the travel industry accepts that the margins earned from insurance sales are far higher than those from the sale of the holiday. Typically, a travel agent will earn 10 per cent. on a holiday and 50 per cent. plus on the insurance. Even before the introduction of the tax measure, one would normally pay considerably more for travel insurance purchased from a travel agent than one would for that bought from a specialist travel insurance broker. The Government's concern in respect of IPT is the adverse effect on the Revenue.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: First, I shall finish the point. The hon. Gentleman presented me with a series of challenges. He is right that it is an important issue, and those studying tonight's debate will be interested in the Government's response.
Dependence on the high margins earned from insurance means that commission rates on holiday sales are kept low. That benefits tour operators, for which that


commission is a significant overhead, and it helps to keep holiday prices down. It is the tax take from those holidays which is affected.
The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the higher rate of tax does not apply to sales of insurance from other, non-travel outlets. That tax structure reflects two key points. Those other insurance providers do not sell taxable goods and services, so they cannot shift their margins to avoid tax. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman made on that. We would have to consider that carefully before we included them in any anti-tax avoidance measure. Furthermore, the price differential in the marketplace suggests that travel insurance is not a price-sensitive product. How can it be, when a travel agent can charge £20 more per policy and, even without the incentive of discounted holidays, can still manage to sell travel insurance to 90 per cent. of its customers?
Given those factors, the previous Government decided to apply the higher rate to travel insurance sold by the travel industry. They apparently anticipated no significant impact on the marketplace. Clearly, we cannot rest on that assumption.
I have asked customs officials to continue to monitor the impact of the measure. They have done that in the travel sector in conjunction with the Association of British Travel Agents, which I have met and corresponded with about its concerns. Discussions continue, but, despite the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman, many of which were in ABTA's recent letter to me on this subject, it has not so far been shown conclusively that travel agents have suffered a loss of market share in travel insurance that can be attributed to the price effect of the higher rate of insurance premium tax.
It is relevant to note that the 1996 survey conducted by Mintel before the advent of the tax change showed that travel agents were losing market share even then. However, I shall consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman said. I shall study the representations that I am currently receiving on this subject. I shall certainly give the matter my attention in the run-up to the Budget, and I shall try to deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The hon. Lady mentioned that she had spoken to ABTA and that it had written to her. Does she agree that the two surveys that it carried out show a loss of commission of 34 per cent? That commission will be lost by the small, independent business person, rather than by the big boys: and we know who the big boys are. If that happens, we shall lose the small travel agent with two, three or up to six staff, which we have had for many years. Those findings are pretty

direct, and I do not know where she will find a more convincing survey. Can she assure us that there will be no job losses?

Dawn Primarolo: The letter from ABTA quoting 34 per cent., which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has literally only just been received in my office. I should caution him that one should determine how surveys are conducted and whether they can withstand the rigours of proper investigation. When I met those at ABTA, they were very happy with the proposal that they should discuss the proposed points with Customs and Excise officials. They said that they were conducting further work, and I presume that the letter is a result of that further work.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that, before taking a decision on the issue, the Government should continue to examine carefully the information that is being produced. The Government's first action must be to defend the Revenue. However, if there is an issue that must be addressed, it will be addressed. I have told the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale that, in the run-up to the Budget, I shall very carefully consider the issues that have been raised by the industry. I shall not, however, be making any announcements in this debate.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: In the earlier part of her reply, the Minister mentioned the necessity of taxing excessive margins—which seems to be a new principle in taxation. I thought that profit margins were properly taxed by corporation tax, and that big tax was taken off firms that made big profits. The idea that we have a tax to attack different margins on different goods sold by the same person is a bit bizarre. Will that principle be applied to supermarkets, for example? Is the same profit margin possible in selling a pineapple as in selling a Kit Kat? I think not. How far is the Minister proposing to take that new concept?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is not doing his case any good. I have explained to the House why the previous Government included specific measures in primary legislation. If he scrutinises Hansard a little more carefully, he will see exactly what happened in that Committee. I have told him in this debate that those matters are being carefully considered, and I have explained the Government's current position.
Our willingness to continue to review—which has constantly been expressed to the industry—shows that we are prepared to take action, if evidence substantiates that action is necessary. To date, however, that evidence has not been supplied. The Government continue to examine the matter in this important time before the Budget.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.